You are on page 1of 7

1

A. CONCEPT OF THE STATE Petitioners filed an action in Court countering that NACOCO is not
a government entity within the purview of section 16, Rule 130 of
BACANI VS NACOCO G.R. No. L-9657 100 Phil 471 the Rules of Court. On the other hand, the defendants set up a
November 29, 1956 defense that NACOCO is a government entity within the purview of
section 2 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 hence, it is
LEOPOLDO T. BACANI and MATEO A. MATOTO, Plaintiffs– exempted from paying the stenographers’ fees under Rule 130 of
Appellees, the Rules of Court.
NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants, Issues: Whether or not National Coconut Corporation (NACOCO),
NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION and BOARD OF which performs certain functions of government, make them a part
LIQUIDATORS, Defendants–Appellants. of the Government of the Philippines.
Facts: Plaintiffs Bacani and Matto are both court stenographers Discussions: NACOCO is not considered a government entity and is
assigned in Branch VI of the Court of First Instance of Manila. not exempted from paying the stenographers’ fees under Rule 130
During the pendency of a civil case in the said court, Francisco Sycip of the Rules of Court.
vs. National Coconut Corporation, Assistant Corporate Counsel
Federico Alikpala, counsel for Defendant, requested said Sec. 2 of the Revised Administrative Code defines the scope of the
stenographers for copies of the transcript of the stenographic notes term “Government of the Republic of the Philippines”. The term
taken by them during the hearing. Plaintiffs complied with the “Government” may be defined as “that institution or aggregate of
request by delivering to Counsel Alikpala the needed transcript institutions by which an independent society makes and carries out
containing 714 pages and thereafter submitted to him their bills for those rules of action which are necessary to enable men to live in a
the payment of their fees. social state, or which are imposed upon the people forming that
society by those who possess the power or authority of prescribing
The National Coconut Corporation (NACOCO) paid the amount of them” (U.S. vs. Dorr, 2 Phil., 332). This institution, when referring to
P564 to Leopoldo T. Bacani and P150 to Mateo A. Matoto for said the national government, has reference to what our Constitution
transcript at the rate of P1 per page. But the Auditor General has established composed of three great departments, the
required the plaintiffs to reimburse said amounts by virtue of a legislative, executive, and the judicial, through which the powers
Department of Justice circular which stated that NACOCO, being a and functions of government are exercised. These functions are
government entity, was exempt from the payment of the fees in twofold: constitute and ministrant. The former are those which
question. For reimbursement to take place, it was further ordered constitute the very bonds of society and are compulsory in nature;
that the amount of P25 per payday be deducted from the salary of
Bacani and P10 from the salary of Matoto.
2

the latter are those that are undertaken only by way of advancing exempt from Commonwealth Act No. 444. PVTA contended it is
the general interests of society, and are merely optional. beyond the jurisdiction of respondent Court as it is exercising
governmental functions and that it is exempt from the operation of
Rulings: No. NACOCO do not acquire that status for the simple Commonwealth Act No. 444.
reason that they do not come under the classification of municipal
or public corporation. While NACOCO was organized for the Issue: Whether or not PVTA discharges governmental and not
purpose of “adjusting the coconut industry to a position proprietary functions.
independent of trade preferences in the United States” and of
providing “Facilities for the better curing of copra products and the YES. But the distinction between the constituent and ministrant
proper utilization of coconut by-products”, a function which our functions of the government has become obsolete. The
government has chosen to exercise to promote the coconut government has to provide for the welfare of its people.
industry. It was given a corporate power separate and distinct from RA No. 2265 providing for a distinction between constituent and
the government, as it was made subject to the the ministrant functions is irrelevant considering the needs of the
present time: “The growing complexities of modern society have
provisions of the Corporation Law in so far as its corporate rendered this traditional classification of the functions of
existence and the powers that it may exercise are concerned government obsolete.”
(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 The contention of petitioner that the Labor Code does not apply to
this sense it is an entity different from our government. them deserve scant consideration.

PVTA v CIR Digest There is no question based on RA 4155, that petitioner is a


governmental agency. As such, the petitioner can rightfully invoke
Facts: This case involves the expanded role of the the doctrine announced in the leading ACCFA case. The objection
government necessitated by the increased responsibility to of private respondents with its overtones of the distinction
provide for the general welfare. In 1966 private respondents between constituent and ministrant functions of governments as
filed a petition seeking relief for their alleged overtime services and set forth in Bacani v. Nacoco, is futile. It does not necessarily follow,
the petitioner’s failure to pay for said compensation in accordance that just because petitioner is engaged in governmental rather than
with CA No. 444. Petitioner denied the allegations for lack of proprietary functions, that the labor controversy was beyond the
a cause of cause of action and lack of jurisdiction of the now defunct respondent Court. Nor is the
jurisdiction. Judge Martinez issued an order, directing petitioner to objection raised that petitioner does not come within the coverage
pay. Hence, this petition for certiorari on grounds that the of the Eight-Hour Labor Law persuasive.
corporation is exercising governmental functions and is therefore
3

A reference to the pertinent sections of both Republic Acts 2265 together with interest, for the benefit of those persons and their
and 2155 renders clear the differentiation that exists. If as a result heirs. Respondent refuse to provide the money, hence, this appeal.
of the appealed order, financial burden would have to be borne by
petitioner, it has only itself to blame. It need not have required ISSUE: Whether or not the Philippine government is authorized to
private respondents to render overtime service. It can hardly be file a reimbursement of the money of the people deposited in
surmised that one of its chief problems is paucity of personnel. respondent bank.
That would indeed be a cause for astonishment. It would appear,
therefore, that such an objection based on this ground certainly HELD: The Court held that the Philippine government is competent
cannot suffice for a reversal. To repeat, respondent Court must be to file a complaint/reimbursement against respondent bank in
sustained. accordance to the Doctrine of Parens Patriae. The government is
the sole protector of the rights of the people thus, it holds an
inherent supreme power to enforce laws which promote public
Government of the Phil. V. Monte de Piedad interest. The government has the right to "take back" the money
intended fro people. The government has the right to enforce all
FACTS: On June 3, 1863, a devastating earthquake in the Philippines charities of public nature, by virtue of its general superintending
took place. The Spanish dominions provided $400,000 aid as authority over the public interests, where no other person is
received by the National Treasury as relief of the victims of the entrusted with it.
earthquake. The government used the money as such but $80,000
was left untouched and was thus invested to Monte de Piedad Appellate court decision was affirmed. Petition was
bank, which was in turn invested as jewelries, equivalent to the thereby GRANTED. The Court ordered that respondent bank return
same amount. the amount to the rightful heirs with interest in gold or coin in
Philippine peso.
In June 1983, the Department of Finance called upon the same
bank to return the $80,000 deposited from before. The Monte de
Piedad declined to comply with this order on the ground that the Co Kim Chan v. Valdez Tan Keh
Governor-General of the Philippine Islands and not the Department
of Finance had the right to order the reimbursement because the Facts of the case: Co Kim Chan had a pending civil case, initiated
Philippine government is not the affected party. On account of during the Japanese occupation, with the Court of First Instance of
various petitions of the persons, the Philippine Islands brought a Manila. After the Liberation of the Manila and the American
suit against Monte de Piedad for a recovery of the $80,000 occupation, Judge Arsenio Dizon refused to continue hearings on
the case, saying that a proclamation issued by General Douglas
4

MacArthur had invalidated and nullified all judicial proceedings and expected even during war, for “the existence of a state of
judgments of the courts of the Philippines and, without an enabling insurrection and war did not loosen the bonds of society, or do
law, lower courts have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of and away with civil government or the regular administration of the
continue judicial proceedings pending in the courts of the defunct laws. And if they were not valid, then it would not have been
Republic of the Philippines (the Philippine government under the necessary for MacArthur to come out with a proclamation
Japanese). abrogating them.
The second question, the court said, hinges on the interpretation of
The court resolved three issues: the phrase “processes of any other government” and whether or
1. Whether or not judicial proceedings and decisions made during not he intended it to annul all other judgments and judicial
the Japanese occupation were valid and remained valid even after proceedings of courts during the Japanese military occupation.
the American occupation; IF, according to international law, non-political judgments and
2. Whether or not the October 23, 1944 proclamation MacArthur judicial proceedings of de facto governments are valid and remain
issued in which he declared that “all laws, regulations and valid even after the occupied territory has been liberated, then it
processes of any other government in the Philippines than that of could not have been MacArthur’s intention to refer to judicial
the said Commonwealth are null and void and without legal effect processes, which would be in violation of international law.
in areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control” A well-known rule of statutory construction is: “A statute ought
invalidated all judgments and judicial acts and proceedings of the never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other
courts; possible construction remains.”
3. And whether or not if they were not invalidated by MacArthur’s Another is that “where great inconvenience will result from a
proclamation, those courts could continue hearing the cases particular construction, or great mischief done, such construction is
pending before them. to be avoided, or the court ought to presume that such
construction was not intended by the makers of the law, unless
Ratio: Political and international law recognizes that all acts and required by clear and unequivocal words.”
proceedings of a de facto government are good and valid. The Annulling judgments of courts made during the Japanese
Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the occupation would clog the dockets and violate international law,
Philippines under the Japanese occupation may be considered de therefore what MacArthur said should not be construed to mean
facto governments, supported by the military force and deriving that judicial proceedings are included in the phrase “processes of
their authority from the laws of war. any other governments.”
Municipal laws and private laws, however, usually remain in force In the case of US vs Reiter, the court said that if such laws and
unless suspended or changed by the conqueror. Civil obedience is institutions are continued in use by the occupant, they become his
5

and derive their force from him. The laws and courts of the rebellion (govt gets possession and control through force or the
Philippines did not become, by being continued as required by the voice of the majority and maintains itself against the will of the
law of nations, laws and courts of Japan. rightful government)
It is a legal maxim that, excepting of a political nature, “law once through occupation (established and maintained by military forces
established continues until changed by some competent legislative who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of
power. IT IS NOT CHANGED MERELY BY CHANGE OF SOVEREIGNTY.” war; denoted as a government of paramount force)
Until, of course, the new sovereign by legislative act creates a through insurrection (established as an independent government
change. by the inhabitants of a country who rise in insurrection against the
Therefore, even assuming that Japan legally acquired sovereignty parent state)
over the Philippines, and the laws and courts of the Philippines had
become courts of Japan, as the said courts and laws creating and People v. Gozo
conferring jurisdiction upon them have continued in force until
now, it follows that the same courts may continue exercising the Loreta Gozo bought a house and lot which was located inside the
same jurisdiction over cases pending therein before the restoration US Naval Reservation which is within the territorial jurisdiction of
of the Commonwealth Government, until abolished or the laws Olongapo City. Upon the advice of an assistant in the Mayor’s
creating and conferring jurisdiction upon them are repealed by the Office and some neighbors, she demolished the house standing
said government. thereon without acquiring the necessary permits and then later on
DECISION: Writ of mandamus issued to the judge of the Court of erected another house. She was then charged by the City
First Instance of Manila, ordering him to take cognizance of and Engineer’s Office for violating a municipal order which requires her
continue to final judgment the proceedings in civil case no. 3012. to secure permits for any demolition and/or construction within
the City. She was convicted in violation thereof by the lower court.
Summary of ratio: She appealed and countered that the City of Olongapo has no
1. International law says the acts of a de facto government are valid administrative jurisdiction over the said lot because it is within a
and civil laws continue even during occupation unless repealed. Naval Base of a foreign country.
2. MacArthur annulled proceedings of other governments, but this
cannot be applied on judicial proceedings because such a ISSUE: Is the Municipal Ordinance enforceable within the US Naval
construction would violate the law of nations. Base?
3. Since the laws remain valid, the court must continue hearing the
case pending before it. HELD: Yes. The Philippine Government has not abdicated its
***3 kinds of de facto government: one established through sovereignty over the bases as part of the Philippine territory or
6

divested itself completely of jurisdiction over offenses committed government, from Commonwealth to the Republic of the
therein. Under the terms of the treaty, the United States Philippines.
Government has prior or preferential but not exclusive jurisdiction
of such offenses. The Philippine Government retains not only DISSENT: During the long period of Japanese occupation, all the
jurisdictional rights not granted, but also all such ceded rights as political laws of the Philippines were suspended. Thus, treason
the United States Military authorities for reasons of their own under the Revised Penal Code cannot be punishable where the laws
decline to make use of (Military Bases Agreement). Hence, in the of the land are momentarily halted. Regarding the change of
exercise of its sovereignty, the State through the City of Olongapo sovereignty, it is true that the Philippines wasn’t sovereign at the
does have administrative jurisdiction over the lot located within the time of the Commonwealth since it was under the United States.
US Naval Base. Hence, the acts of treason done cannot carry over to the new
Republic where the Philippines is now indeed sovereign.
Laurel v. Misa

FACTS: The accused was charged with treason. During the Japanese Ruffy v. Chief of Staff
occupation, the accused adhered to the enemy by giving the latter
aid and comfort. He claims that he cannot be tried for treason since FACTS: During the Japanese insurrection in the Philippines, military
his allegiance to the Philippines was suspended at that time. Also, men were assigned at designated camps or military bases all over
he claims that he cannot be tried under a change of sovereignty the country. Japanese forces went to Mindoro thus forcing
over the country since his acts were against the Commonwealth petitioner and his band move up the mountains and organize a
which was replaced already by the Republic. guerilla outfit and call it the "Bolo area". A certain Capt. Beloncio
HELD/RATIO: The accused was found guilty. A citizen owes absolute relieved Ruffy and fellow petitioners of their position and duties in
and permanent allegiance tohis government or sovereign. No the "Bolo area" by the new authority vested upon him because of
transfer of sovereignty was made; hence, it is presumed that the the recent change of command. Capt. Beloncio was thus allegedly
Philippine government still had the power. Moreover, sovereignty slain by Ruffy and his fellow petitioners.
cannot be suspended; it is either subsisting or eliminated and
replaced. Sovereignty per se wasn’t suspended; rather, it was the ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners were subject to military law
exercise of sovereignty that was suspended. Thus, there is no at the time the offense was committed, which was at the time of
suspended allegiance. Regarding the change of government, there war and the Japanese occupancy.
is no such change since the sovereign – the Filipino people – is still
the same. What happened was a mere change of name of
7

HELD: The Court held that the petitioners were still subject to
military law since members of the Armed Forces were still covered
by the National Defense Act, Articles of War and other laws even
during an occupation. The act of unbecoming of an officer and a
gentleman is considered as a defiance of 95th Article of War held
petitioners liable to military jurisdiction and trial. Moreover, they
were operating officers, which makes them even more eligible for
the military court's jurisdiction.
In consideration of the foregoing, the petition has no merit and
should be dismissed. Thus, the petition is hereby DENIED.

You might also like