bacani and matoto vs

7/28/2019 Bacani and Matoto Vs

1/3

Bacani and Matoto vs. Natl. Coconut Corp., et al.

100 Phil 471

FACTS:

Plaintiffs are a court stenographer assigned in Branch VI of the Court of First

Instance of Manila. During the pendency of Civil Case No. 2293 (Francisco Sycip vs.

National Coconut Corporation) the counsel for defendant requested to the

stenographers for copies of the transcript of the stenographic notes taken by them

during the hearing.

Plaintiffs complied with 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. The National Coconut Corporation paid the amount of P564 to

Leopoldo T. Bacani and P150 to Mateo A. Matoto for said transcript at the rate of P1 per

page.

The Auditor General disallowed the payment of these fees and sought the

recovery of the amounts paid. On January 19, 1953, the Auditor General required

the Plaintiffs to reimburse the paid amount.

The Department of Justice expressed its opinion that the National Coconut

Corporation, being a government entity, was exempt from the payment of the fees.(Section 8, Rule 130, stenography may only charge as fees P0.03 for each page of

transcript of not less than 200 words before the appeal is taken and P0.15 for each

page after the filing of the appeal)

The party has agreed and in fact has paid P1 per page for the services rendered

by the stenographers and has not raised any objection to the amount paid until its

propriety was disputed by the Auditor General.

On February 6, 1954, the Auditor General issued an order directing the Cashier

of the Department of Justice to deduct from the salary of Leopoldo T. Bacani the

amount of P25 every payday and from the salary of Mateo A. Matoto the amount of P10

every payday beginning March 30, 1954.

To prevent deduction of these fees from their salaries and secure a judicial ruling

that the National Coconut Corporation is not a government entity within the purview of

section 16, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, this action was instituted in the Court of First

Instance of Manila.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not National Coconut Corporation is a government entity or included

in the term Government of the Republic of the Philippines.


2/3

2. Whether or not corporations that perform certain functions of government make

them a part of the Government of the Philippines.

3. Whether or not the plaintiffs are liable for salary deduction for the amount paid to

them as stenographers.

HELD:

1. No, 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 called 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 exemptionclause prescribed in section 16, Rule 130 of our Rules of Court.

2. No, they do not come under the classification of municipal or public corporation.

The mere fact that the Government happens to be a majority stockholder does

not make it a public corporation

3. No, under section 8, Rule 130, stenographers may only charge as fees P0.30 for

each page of transcript of not less than 200 words before the appeal is taken and

P0.15 for each page after the filing of the appeal, but in this case the National

Coconut Corporation, both parties has agreed on P1.00 per page for the services

rendered by the Plaintiffs and has not raised any objection to the amount paid

until its propriety was disputed by the Auditor General. The payment of the fees

in question became therefore contractual and as such is valid even if it goes

beyond the limit prescribed in section 8, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.

The decision of the Court appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as

to costs because the case does not come under section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules

of Court relative to appeals from a decision of the Auditor General (deducting

from Plaintiffs salaries the amount paid to them as stenographers).


3/3

bacani and matoto vs

Documents