EN BANC[G.R. No. L-9657.November 29, 1956.]LEOPOLDO T. BACANI !" #ATEO A. #ATOTO, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v$. NATIONAL COCON%T CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants, NATIONAL COCON%T CORPORATION !" BOARD O& LI'%IDATOR(, Defendants-Appellants.D E C I ( I O N )BA%TI(TA ANGELO, J.)&*+$, LEOPOLDO B*!- and #ATEO #+o+o are *o.r+ $+e!o/r01er$ assigned in Br!*1 2I of the Court of First Instance (RTC) of Manila. During the pendency of C-v-3 C$e No. 2294 of said court, entitled &r!*-$*o (5*-0 v$. N+-o!3 Co*o!.+ Cor0or+-o!, A$$-$+!+ Cor0or+e Co.!$e3 &e"er-*o A3-603, counsel for Defendant, requested said stenographers for copies of the transcript of the stenographic notes taken y the! during the hearing." Plaintiffs co!plied and deli#ered the transcript of 717 0/e$ (as $ell as the corresponding ill) to Counsel Federico %likpala. In turn, &%C'C' paid the a!ount of P567 to (eopoldo )acani and P158 to Mateo Matoto for said transcript at the rate of P1 0er 0/e. 'n *anuary +,, +,-., the %uditor /eneral required the Plaintiffs to rei!urse said a!ounts on the strength of a circular of the Depart!ent of *ustice $herein the opinion $as e0pressed that the &ational Coconut Corporation, eing a go#ern!ent entity, $as e0e!pt fro! the pay!ent of the fees in question. 'n Feruary 1, +,-2, the %uditor /eneral issued an order directing the Cashier of the Depart!ent of *ustice to deduct fro! the salary of (eopoldo T. )acani the a!ount of P25 ever5 05"5 and fro! the salary of Mateo %. Matoto the a!ount of P18 ever5 05"5 eginning March .3, +,-2. To pre#ent deduction of these fees fro! their salaries and secure a 4udicial ruling that the &ational Coconut Corporation is not a go#ern!ent entity $ithin the pur#ie$ of section +1, Rule +.3 of the Rules of Court, this action $as instituted in the Court of First Instance of Manila. Defendants set up as a defense that the &ational Coconut Corporation is a go#ern!ent entity $ithin the pur#ie$ of section 5 of the Re#ised %d!inistrati#e Code of +,+6 and, hence, it is e0e!pt fro! paying the stenographers7 fees under Rule +.3 of the Rules of Court. %fter trial, the court found for the Plaintiffsdeclaring (+) 8that Defendant &ational Coconut Corporation is not a go#ern!ententity $ithin the pur#ie$ of section +1, Rule +.3 of the Rules of Court9 chan roles#irtuala$lirary(5) that the pay!ents already !ade y said Defendant to Plaintiffs herein and recei#ed y the latter fro! the for!er in the total a!ount of:6+2, for copies of the stenographic transcripts in question, are #alid, 4ust and legal9 chan roles#irtuala$liraryand (.) that Plaintiffs are under no oligation $hatsoe#er to !ake a refund of these pay!ents already recei#ed y the!.; This is an appeal fro! said decision.