Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1967 > March 1967 Decisions > G.R. No. L-22463 March 31, 1967 - ALFREDO A. JOSE v. HON. VICENTE G. GELLA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-22463. March 31, 1967.]

ALFREDO A. JOSE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. HON. VICENTE G. GELLA, as Treasurer of the Philippines, Et Al., Respondents. HON. VICENTE G. GELLA, as Treasurer of the Philippines, Respondent-Appellant.

Solicitor General for Respondent-Appellant.

Carolina L. de Guzman for Petitioner-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. BACKPAY CERTIFICATES; TRANSFER; MANDAMUS WITH PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SERVE THE PURPOSE OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. — Where the judgment of the trial court on a petition for mandamus and preliminary injunction has become final, declaring the transfer of backpay rights of Sultan to Jose valid and binding on the former, and ordering the Insular Treasurer to cancel the treasury warrant in favor of the former and to issue another one for the sum of P1,012.58 in favor of petitioner; and the National Treasurer neither questions the jurisdiction of the court below, nor disputes the above ruling, the same is binding on the Supreme Court and said petition for mandamus and injunction should be deemed for the purpose a suit for specific performance.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


Direct appeal on questions of law by the Treasurer of the Philippines, from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, in its Civil Case No. 52833.

As found by the trial court, the facts of this case are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Guillermo E. Sultan, a resident of Sibonga, Cebu, was the owner of Backpay Acknowledgment Certificate No. A-73422, showing a net balance of P1,012.58. On November 12, 1958, he sold, transferred and assigned, for a consideration of P977.16, his backpay rights to one Alfredo A. Jose (Exh. A.). On the same date, Sultan also executed a notarized special power of attorney appointing the said Jose his true and lawful attorney-in-fact, to claim, demand and collect the proceeds of said backpay certificate and to take such steps as may be necessary for the collection and payment of the claim. (Exh. B).

Jose filed his claim covering Sultan’s backpay with the Backpay Office, which made an inquiry from Sultan, but the latter denied having sold or assigned his backpay rights to Jose. Whereupon, the Backpay Office referred the matter to the Cebu Provincial Commander of the Philippine Constabulary who, after investigation and verification, recommended that the alleged sale be nullified.

In a letter dated January 2, 1963, the National Treasurer informed Jose, through his counsel, of the existence of Treasury Warrant No. 1145640 which he withheld, and of the findings and recommendation of the Cebu (P.C.) Provincial Commander as well and further stated that "unless this (Backpay) Office received within 15 days from your receipt hereof further valid cause to the contrary this Office shall release the aforementioned Treasury Warrant No. 1145640 to Mr. Guillermo E. Sultan by registered mail to his address of record." (Exh. D).

Upon receipt of the above-mentioned letter, Jose filed, on January 19, 1963, in the court below, a petition against the National Treasurer and Guillermo E. Sultan as parties respondents, praying that a writ of mandamus be issued, directing and ordering said Treasurer to release instead said treasury warrant in his (Jose’s) favor. Plaintiff also prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction against the release of the treasury warrant to Sultan.

The trial court, after due hearing, issued the writ prayed for until further orders.

The National Treasurer answered the petition, raising technical defenses while Sultan moved, at first, to dismiss the same, also based on technical grounds. Sultan’s motion was, however, denied by the trial court and he answered the petition, reiterating his technical defenses and averring as special and affirmative defense that his signatures to the deed of absolute sale of his backpay rights and the special power of attorney were obtained through fraud and without any consideration whatsoever. He did not, however, pray for the nullification of said contracts.

At the scheduled trial, only petitioner Jose and his counsel and the counsel for the National Treasurer appeared, while Sultan and his counsel despite previous notice to them, did not attend. The trial court then proceeded with the hearing in which petitioner Jose testified to establish the genuineness and validity of his contracts with Sultan.

On December 14, 1963, the trial court rendered its decision, the dispositive part of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the transfer of rights of Backpay Acknowledgment Certificate No. A-73422 of Guillermo E. Sultan in favor of the petitioner to be valid, and the Insular Treasurer is hereby ordered to cancel the treasury warrant in favor of Guillermo E. Sultan and to issue another one for the sum of P1,012.58 in favor of the petitioner. With costs against Guillermo E. Sultan."cralaw virtua1aw library

Unsuccessful in his efforts to have the decision reconsidered, the National Treasurer appealed directly to this Court. Sultan did not, however, appeal from the decision.

In his brief, the National Treasurer points out that backpay rights are created, established and recognized under a special law (Rep. Act No. 304, as amended), and as such, all transactions affecting rights recognized therein must be governed by its provisions and not by the Civil Code; that the right to and the mode of collecting the proceeds of backpay claims by the holder or his assignee or transferee is prescribed by law and is subject to certain conditions and limitations, compliance with which is not a mere formality but a condition sine qua non to make any transfer or assignment of backpay rights enforceable against the government; that in case of transfer or assignment of backpay rights to a person or financial institution, the following are required: (1) that the transferee must, if a person, be a Filipino, and if a bank or financial institution, at least 60% of its capital must be owned by Filipinos; (2) that the rate at which the certificate may be discounted, can not exceed 3 1/2% per annum, and the period of redemption cannot exceed ten years; and (3) that the transfer can be made only by means of an application to be filed by the holder of a backpay acknowledgment with the Office of the Treasurer of the Philippines for the issuance of a negotiable certificate of indebtedness chargeable against his backpay account and in favor of the person or entity willing to accept the same. Since the transfer or assignment in the case at bar was made by means of "ordinary" sale, without the backpay holder having applied for the issuance of a negotiable certificate of indebtedness in favor of Jose; and the legal and administrative requirements of the Backpay Law were not, therefore, complied with, the National Treasurer contends that the said sale can not be binding and enforceable against him.

The National Treasurer also questions the propriety of an action for mandamus, pointing out that the appellee (Jose) has an available and effective remedy by an ordinary action against Sultan for specific performance to compel the latter to comply with all the requirements of the Backpay Law, i.e., to apply for the issuance of a negotiable certificate of indebtedness in his (Jose’s) favor; that Jose may ask in that suit for a writ of preliminary injunction, directing the National Treasurer to withhold the release of the treasury warrant to Sultan pending the final termination of the action between the parties; and once Jose obtains a favorable judgment finally ordering Sultan to apply for the necessary negotiable certificate of indebtedness in his (Jose’s) favor, only then would the National Treasurer be legally bound to recognize the transfer of rights by Sultan to him (Jose).

Without passing on the merits of the above contentions of the National Treasurer, we are constrained to hold that the appealed judgment should be affirmed. It is to be noted that the trial court ruled that the deed of transfer of backpay rights by Sultan in favor of Jose is valid effective and binding against the former. Such ruling has become final against defendant Sultan, he not having appealed therefrom. The National Treasurer does not question the jurisdiction of the court below, nor does he dispute its ruling on the validity of the transfer of backpay rights between Sultan and Jose, and the same is binding on this Court, the National Treasurer having taken a direct appeal to us. Under these circumstances, we believe that the petition filed in the court below, although denominated as one for mandamus and injunction, has already served the purpose of a suit for specific performance which the National Treasurer suggests as the more appropriate and effective remedy. To require another separate action would not only entail an expensive, cumbersome and dilatory proceeding, but would also involve a multiplicity of suits not sanctioned by the Rules of Court. In effect, it would be merely indulging in technicalities.

Wherefore, the appealed decision should be, as it is hereby, affirmed. Without pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Regala, Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.

Bengzon, J.P., J., concurs in the result.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1967 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-24811 March 3, 1967 - MARITIME COMPANY OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. HON. ANSBERTO P. PAREDES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17027 March 3, 1967 - YU KIMTENG CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23348 March 14, 1967 - JUAN DELFIN v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22306 March 18, 1967 - FELICITAS C. TAN, ET AL. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19870 March 18, 1967 - MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JOAQUIN v. NICANOR SIVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23957 March 18, 1967 - ROMAN D. ABELLERA v. CITY OF BAGUIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19899 March 18, 1967 - IN RE: TAN TIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18880 March 18, 1967 - HECTOR MORENO, ET AL. v. MARY A. MARSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22421 March 18, 1967 - IMUS ELECTRIC CO., INC. v. HON. COURT OF TAX APPEAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22420 March 18, 1967 - PHIL. INTERNATIONAL SURETY CO., INC. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23888 March 18, 1967 - FRANCISCO C. MANABAT v. LAGUNA FEDERATION OF FACOMAS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21707 March 18, 1967 - FELIPE ACAR, ET AL. v. INOCENCIO ROSAL

  • G.R. No. L-25047 & L-25050 March 18, 1967 - DOMINGO ANG v. AMERICAN STEAMSHIP AGENCIES, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-16949 March 18, 1967 - ROSALINA SANTOS ETC., ET AL. v. HON. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-26361 March 18, 1967 - MA-AO SUGAR CENTRAL CO., INC. v. SINFOROSO CAÑETE

  • G.R. No. L-23007 March 30, 1967 - LAMBERTO RAMOS, ET AL. v. ROSITA RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18498 March 30, 1967 - JOSE H. JUNQUERA v. CRISPIN BORROMEO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25010 March 30, 1967 - REMEDIOS CUENCO VDA. DE BORROMEO, ET AL. v. MATEO CANONOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22399 March 30, 1967 - REPUBLIC BANK v. MIGUEL CUADERNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18278 March 30, 1967 - MANUEL BERNABE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20320 March 30, 1967 - VICTORIA VDA. DE GASTON v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21846 March 31, 1967 - ROMEO ALARCON v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22463 March 31, 1967 - ALFREDO A. JOSE v. HON. VICENTE G. GELLA

  • G.R. No. L-24921 March 31, 1967 - COMM. OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. VISAYAN ELECTRIC CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21180 March 31, 1967 - IN RE: ANTONINA B. OSHITA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21656 March 31, 1967 - TOMAS ALARCON v. RUFINA GUERRERO VDA. DE TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22153 March 31, 1967 - ALFREDO ARROZ v. JOAQUINA A. ALOJADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17988 March 31, 1967 - POMPENIANO ESPINOSA, ET AL. v. AURELIA BELDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22372 March 31, 1967 - IN RE: CHUA TEK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.