Bacani vs NACOCO (1956) G.R.

 L-9657

Facts: 
Plaintiffs are courts stenographers assigned in branch VI of the CFI of manila. During the
pendency of a civil case of said court, entitled Francisco Scyip vs. NACOCO, assistant
corporate counsel Federico alikpala, counsel for nacoco, requested said stenographers for
copies of the transcript of the stenographic notes taken by them during the hearing.
Plaintiff deliver the request by delivering to Counsel Alikpala the needed transcript
containing 714 pages and thereafter submitted to him their bills for the payment of their
fees. NACOCO paid the amount of 564 PHP to bacani and 150 PHP to Matoto for the
transcript with a rate of 1 PHP per page.
In the inspection of the books of this corporation, the auditor General disallowed the
payment of these fees and sought to refund the amounts paid. On the month of January
1953, the auditor General ordered the Plaintiff to reimburse said amounts on the strength
of a circular of the department of Justice wherein the opinion was expressed that
NACOCO, being a government entity, was exempt from the payment of the fees in
question. Moreover February 1954, the auditor General issued an order directing the
cashier of Department of Justice to deduct from the salary of Bacani the amount of 25 PHP
every payday and from the Salary of Matoto the amount of 10 PHP every pay day starting
March 30, 1954. To prevent deduction of these fees from their salaries and secure a judicial
ruling that NACOCO IS NOT A GOVERNMENT ENTITY in the basis of sec.15, Rule 130
of the Rules of Court, this action was instituted in the CFI of MANILA

ISSUE: A CLAIM THAT NACOCO IS A GOVERNMENT ENTITY UNDER THE BASIS

OF Revised Administrative code 1917. Will it justify the exemption of paying the
stenographer’s Fees under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court?
Held: No, therefore it is not exempted from paying the stenographers’ fees under Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court.Sec. 2 of the Revised Administrative Code defines the scope of the term
“Government of the Republic of the Philippines”.
The full definition of the term “Government may be defined as that institution by which are
necessary to enable men to live in a social state, or which imposed upon people forming that
society by those who possess the power or authority of prescribing them (US VS DORR, 2 Phil.,
332).
Hence in reference woth that Constitution that has established three main departments namely,
Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. Through this the function and power of the Government are
exercised.
. These functions are twofold: constitute and ministrant. The former are those which constitute
the very bonds of society and are compulsory in nature; the latter are those that are undertaken
only by way of advancing the general interests of society, and are merely optional.
To recapitulate, we may mention that the term “Government of the Republic of the Philippines”
used in section 2 of the Revised Administrative Code refers only to that government entity
through which the functions of the government are exercised as an attribute of sovereignty, and
in this are included those arms through which political authority is made effective whether they
be provincial, municipal or other form of local government. These are what we call municipal
corporations. They do not include government entities which are given a corporate personality
separate and distinct from the government and which are governed by the Corporation Law.
Their powers, duties and liabilities have to be determined in the light of that law and of their
corporate charters. They do not therefore come within the exemption clause prescribed in section
16, Rule 130 of our Rules of Court.