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 Ciil Case !o. ""#$ %Francisco &ycip s.
!ational Coconut Corporation' the counsel for defendant re(uested to the
stenographers for copies of the transcript of the stenographic notes ta)en *y the+
during the hearing.
Plaintiffs co+plied ,ith the re(uest *y deliering to Counsel -li)pala the needed
transcript containing 714 pages and thereafter su*+itted to hi+ their *ills for the
pay+ent of their fees. .he !ational Coconut Corporation paid the a+ount of P/04 to
1eopoldo .. Bacani and P1/0 to Mateo -. Matoto for said transcript at the rate of P1 per
page.
.he -uditor 2eneral disallo,ed the pay+ent of these fees and sought the
recoery of the a+ounts paid. 3n 4anuary 1#5 1#/$5 the -uditor 2eneral re(uired
the Plaintiffs to rei+*urse the paid a+ount.
.he Depart+ent of 4ustice e6pressed its opinion that the !ational Coconut
Corporation5 *eing a goern+ent entity5 ,as e6e+pt fro+ the pay+ent of the fees.
%&ection 75 8ule 1$05 stenography +ay only charge as fees P0.0$ for each page of
transcript of not less than "00 ,ords *efore the appeal is ta)en and P0.1/ for each
page after the filing of the appeal'
.he party has agreed and in fact has paid P1 per page for the serices rendered
*y the stenographers and has not raised any o*9ection to the a+ount paid until its
propriety ,as disputed *y the -uditor 2eneral.
3n Fe*ruary 05 1#/45 the -uditor 2eneral issued an order directing the Cashier
of the Depart+ent of 4ustice to deduct fro+ the salary of 1eopoldo .. Bacani the
a+ount of P"/ eery payday and fro+ the salary of Mateo -. Matoto the a+ount of P10
eery payday *eginning March $05 1#/4.
.o preent deduction of these fees fro+ their salaries and secure a 9udicial ruling
that the !ational Coconut Corporation is not a goern+ent entity ,ithin the purie, of
section 105 8ule 1$0 of the 8ules of Court5 this action ,as instituted in the Court of First
Instance of Manila.
ISSUE:
1. :hether or not !ational Coconut Corporation is a goern+ent entity or included
in the ter+ ;2oern+ent of the 8epu*lic of the Philippines<.
". :hether or not corporations that perfor+ certain functions of goern+ent +a)e
the+ a part of the 2oern+ent of the Philippines.
$. :hether or not the plaintiffs are lia*le for salary deduction for the a+ount paid to
the+ as stenographers.
HE!:
1. !o5 ;2oern+ent of the 8epu*lic of the Philippines< used in section " of the
8eised -d+inistratie Code refers only to that goern+ent entity through ,hich
the functions of the goern+ent are e6ercised as an attri*ute of soereignty5 and
in this are included those ar+s through ,hich political authority is +ade effectie
,hether they *e proincial5 +unicipal or other for+ of local goern+ent. .hese
are called +unicipal corporations. .hey do not include goern+ent entities ,hich
are gien a corporate personality separate and distinct fro+ the goern+ent and
,hich are goerned *y the Corporation 1a,.
.heir po,ers5 duties and lia*ilities hae to *e deter+ined in the light of that la,
and of their corporate charters. .hey do not therefore co+e ,ithin the e6e+ption
clause prescri*ed in section 105 8ule 1$0 of our 8ules of Court.
2. !o5 they do not co+e under the classification of +unicipal or pu*lic corporation.
;.he +ere fact that the 2oern+ent happens to *e a +a9ority stoc)holder does
not +a)e it a pu*lic corporation<
3. !o5 under section 75 8ule 1$05 stenographers +ay only charge as fees P0.$0 for
each page of transcript of not less than "00 ,ords *efore the appeal is ta)en and
P0.1/ for each page after the filing of the appeal5 *ut in this case the !ational
Coconut Corporation5 *oth parties has agreed on P1.00 per page for the serices
rendered *y the Plaintiffs and has not raised any o*9ection to the a+ount paid
until its propriety ,as disputed *y the -uditor 2eneral. .he pay+ent of the fees
in (uestion *eca+e therefore contractual and as such is alid een if it goes
*eyond the li+it prescri*ed in section 75 8ule 1$0 of the 8ules of Court.
.he decision of the Court appealed fro+ is affir+ed5 ,ithout pronounce+ent as
to costs *ecause the case does not co+e under section 15 8ule 4/ of the 8ules
of Court relatie to appeals fro+ a decision of the -uditor 2eneral %deducting
fro+ Plaintiffs= salaries the a+ount paid to the+ as stenographers='.