G.R. No. L-9657, November 29, 1956.
Plaintiffs herein are court stenographers. National Coconut Corporation, Assistant Corporate Counsel Federico Alikpala requested the stenographers for copies of the transcript of the stenographic notes taken by them during the hearing of Civil Case No. 2293 entitled Francisco Sycip vs. National Coconut Corporation. Plaintiffs complied with the request and thereafter submitted to him their bills for the payment of their fees amounting to P714.00.
The Auditor General required the plaintiffs to reimburse said amounts on the strength of a circular of the Department of Justice wherein the opinion was expressed that the National Coconut Corporation, being a government entity, was exempt from the payment of the fees in question. The Auditor General issued an order directing the Cashier of the Department of Justice to deduct from the salary of plaintiffs the subject amounts. 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.
Under section 16, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the Government of the Philippines is exempt from paying the legal fees provided for therein, and among these fees are those which stenographers may charge for the transcript of notes taken by them that may be requested by any interested person (section 8). The fees in question are for the transcript of notes taken during the hearing of a case in which the National Coconut Corporation is interested, and the transcript was requested by its assistant corporate counsel for the use of said corporation.
On the other hand, section 2 of the Revised Administrative Code defines the scope of the term “Government of the Republic of the Philippines” as follows:
“‘The Government of the Philippine Islands’ is a term which refers to the corporate governmental entity through which the functions of government are exercised throughout the Philippine Islands, including, save as the contrary appears from the context, the various arms through which political authority is made effective in said Islands, whether pertaining to the central Government or to the provincial or municipal branches or other form of local government.”
whether the National Coconut Corporation may be considered as included in the term “Government of the Republic of the Philippines” for the purposes of the exemption of the legal fees provided for in Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
NO. GOCC’s do not acquire that status for the simple reason that they do not come under the classification of municipal or public corporation.
While it was organized with the purpose of “adjusting the coconut industry to a position independent of trade preferences in the United States” and of providing “Facilities for the better curing of copra products and the proper utilization of coconut by-products”, a function which our government has chosen to exercise to promote the coconut industry, however, it was given a corporate power separate and distinct from our government, for it was made subject to the provisions of our Corporation Law in so far as its corporate existence and the powers that it may exercise are concerned (sections 2 and 4, Commonwealth Act No. 518). It may sue and be sued in the same manner as any other private corporations, and in this sense it is an entity different from our government. As this Court has aptly said, “The mere fact that the Government happens to be a majority stockholder does not make it a public corporation.”
The term “Government of the Republic of the Philippines” refers to a government entity through which the functions of government are exercised, including the various arms through which political authority is made effective in the Philippines, whether pertaining to the central government or to the provincial or municipal branches or other form of local government.
“Government” may be defined as “that institution or aggregate of institutions by which an independent society makes and carries out those rules of action which are necessary to enable men to live in a social state, or which are imposed upon the people forming that society by those who possess the power or authority of prescribing them”
abuse of rights Administrative Law Agency alteration Article 19 Article 26 of the Family Code article 36 Article 148 of the Family Code Article 153 of the Family Code Bill of Rights capacity to contract marriage Case Digest Chain of Custody Civil Code civil law Civil Procedure commercial law Company Policies Conflicts of Law Constitutional Law Constitutional Rights of Employers and Employees Corporate Law court of appeals Credit Card Credit Transactions criminal law criminal procedure Different Kind Of Obligations dismissal divorce Donation Dreamwork easements ec2 Effect of Partial payment ejusdem generis Election Law Eminent Domain Employee’s Rights evidence Expropriation Extinguishment of Obligations – Compensation family code family home Federico O Borromeo Inc Foreclosure foreign divorce forgery G.R. No. 107019 G.R. No. 119122 Government Service Insurance System Injunction instagram Insurable Interest Insurance Intellectual Property japan Judicial review Just Compensation L-26002 labor law Law School Local Government Code marriage NAIA Terminal 3 National Labor Relations Commission negotiable instrument Oblicon Obligation and Contracts Payment through Agent Persons and Family Relations Philippine Airlines Philippine Airlines Inc. Philippine Basketball Association Philippine citizenship Police power Political Law Ponente Premium Payment programming property Provisional Remedies Psychological Incapacity public officers R.S. Tomas Inc. Reinsurance Remedial Law Residence Rights to Security of Tenure and Due Process San Miguel Properties security Seven (7) Cardinal Rights of Workers shrines Social justice Sources of Labor Rights and Obligations Succession Taxation Law temple tokyo TYPES of Employees