Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1952 > May 1952 Decisions > G.R. No. L-4132 May 23, 1952 - FRANCISCO M. ALONSO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

091 Phil 345:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-4132. May 23, 1952.]

FRANCISCO M. ALONSO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Defendant-Appellee.

Alonso & Alonso for Appellant.

First Assistant Corporate Counsel Federico C. Alikpala and Assistant Attorney Augusto Kalaw for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. BILLS AND NOTES; REDEMPTION OF NOTES ISSUED BY PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK. — Republic Act No. 211 provides for the retirement and redemption of the circulating notes lawfully issued by the Philippine National Bank and the registration and deposit of such notes illegally issued, and it enumerates the serial numbers of the notes which cannot be redeemed. The effect of the appealed decision rendered after said act was enacted, is that the plaintiff may present, for redemption, the circulating notes in his possession that are authorized to be redeemed under Republic Act No. 211.

2. ID.; ID.; APPEAL; CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LAW CANNOT BE RAISED FOR FIRST TIME ON APPEAL. — The constitutionality of a law cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. It is true that at the time the complaint was held, and during the trial, Republic Act No. 211 was not yet in existence, but the appellant could have attacked its constitutionality in a motion for reconsideration or new trial in the lower court, especially because the appealed decision was solely based thereon.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, C.J. :


In his complaint filed on January 16, 1947, in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, the plaintiff, Francisco M. Alonso alleges that he has held since before the liberation of the Philippines circulating notes of the Philippine National Bank, in the amount of P7,000, which he presented to the defendant, Philippine National Bank, for redemption in actual legal currency, but that the defendant has refused to redeem the same; that, because of such refusal, the plaintiff suffered damages in the sum of P5,000, resulting from his failure to invest the money in lucrative business and from the interest he paid on other commercial obligations which he could not settle with the circulating notes. The plaintiff prays that the defendant be sentenced to redeem the notes and to pay the damages.

In its answer, the defendant sets up the special defense that on November 18, 1944, the President of the Philippines issued Executive Order No. 25, paragraph 6 of which provided that the Philippine National Bank notes (except duly authorized emergency issues) were not legal tender and that transactions in said currencies were prohibited; that, at any rate, the defendant Bank had already redeemed all the circulating notes legally issued by it.

After hearing, the Court of First Instance of Cebu rendered on August 11, 1948, a decision dismissing the complaint, without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff to present such bills in his possession to the City Treasury of Cebu as may be redeemable in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act No. 211. From this decision the plaintiff has appealed.

It is to be noted that, although the plaintiff alleged to be the holder of Philippine National Bank circulating notes in the amount of P7,000, he actually presented at the trial notes amounting only to P2,630. The appealed decision is predicated on Republic Act No. 211, enacted by the Congress of the Philippines on July 1, 1948, or after the trial of the case but before the appealed decision was rendered. This Act provides for the retirement and redemption of the circulating notes lawfully issued by the Philippine National Bank and the registration and deposit of such notes illegally issued, and it enumerates the serial numbers of the notes which cannot be redeemed. The effect of the appealed decision, therefore, is that the plaintiff may present, for redemption, the circulating notes in his possession that are authorized to be redeemed under Republic Act No. 211.

We agree with the trial court that Republic Act No. 211 is decisive. The appellant in this instance, however, assails the constitutionality of said Act. This the appellant cannot do, since a question of constitutionality cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. (Laperal v. City of Manila, 62 Phil., 352; Macondray & Co. v. Benito and Ocampo, 62 Phil., 137; De Leon v. Santiago Syjuco, Inc., 90 Phil., 311.) It is true that at the time the complaint was filed, and during the trial, Republic Act No. 211 was not yet in existence, but the appellant could have attacked its constitutionality in a motion for reconsideration or new trial in the lower court, especially because the appealed decision was solely based thereon.

It is clear that the appellant is not entitled to the damages claimed in his complaint. If he was not able to utilize the circulating notes in question, it was undoubtedly because Executive Order No. 25, issued on November 18, 1944, by the President of the Philippines, prohibited transactions in such currency which was expressly outlawed as a legal tender.

Wherefore, the appealed decision is affirmed, and it is so ordered with costs against the Appellant.

Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





May-1952 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-4367 May 2, 1952 - GENEROSA TORREFIEL, ET AL. v. ANASTACIO TORIANO

    091 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-3318 May 5, 1952 - CORNELIO ANTIQUERA v. SOTERO BALUYOT

    091 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. L-5482 May 5, 1952 - TRANQUILINO ROVERO v. RAFAEL AMPARO, ET AL.

    091 Phil 228

  • G.R. No. L-4741 May 7, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIGIO CAMO, ET AL.

    091 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. L-5514 May 7, 1952 - PEDRO CALANO v. PEDRO CRUZ

    091 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-4472 May 8, 1952 - ESPIRIDION RONE v. VICTOR CLARO, ET AL.

    091 Phil 250

  • G.R. No. L-5047 May 8, 1952 - VICENTE PANG KOK HUA v. REPUBLICA DE FILIPINAS

    091 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. L-4002 May 12, 1952 - RAMON PASCUAL v. REALTY INVESTMENT, INC.

    091 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. L-4615 May 12, 1952 - JUAN DULDULAO, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS

    091 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. L-4133 May 13, 1952 - AGUSTINA DE GUZMAN VDA. DE CARRILLO v. FRANCISCA SALAK DE PAZ

    091 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-4893 May 13, 1952 - PEDRO GAMBOA v. JOSE TEODORO

    091 Phil 270

  • G.R. Nos. L-4100 & L-4102 May 15, 1952 - INTERPROVINCIAL AUTOBUS COMPANY v. LUIS CLARETE

    091 Phil 275

  • G.R. No. L-4156 May 15, 1952 - FLORENCIA VITUG v. DONATA MONTEMAYOR

    091 Phil 286

  • G.R. Nos. L-4218-19 May 19, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GENARO OBENIA

    091 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. L-4420 May 19, 1952 - CESAR REYES v. MAX BLOUSE

    091 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. L-3899 May 21, 1952 - RAYMUNDO TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. VICTORINO CERVO

    091 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-4189 May 21, 1952 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. JACINTO SANTOS

    091 Phil 320

  • G.R. No. L-4234 May 21, 1952 - ABBOT LABORATORIES v. CELEDONIO AGRAVA

    091 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. L-3391 May 23, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN HERNANDEZ

    091 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. L-4132 May 23, 1952 - FRANCISCO M. ALONSO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

    091 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. L-4333 May 23, 1952 - MARY HAYDEN ARCACHE v. NICOLAS LIZARES & CO., INC., ET AL.

    091 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. L-3646 May 26, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO S. RIVERA

    091 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. L-4043 May 26, 1952 - CENON S. CERVANTES v. THE AUDITOR GENERAL

    091 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. L-4783 May 26, 1952 - JULITA RELUCIO v. RAMON R. SAN JOSE, ETC.

    091 Phil 365

  • G.R. No. L-4869 May 26, 1952 - ESTEBAN MANGAOANG v. PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF LA UNION

    091 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. L-3538 May 28, 1952 - JUAN LUNA SUBDIVISION v. M. SARMIENTO

    091 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. L-4061 May 28, 1952 - CENTRAL VEGETABLE OIL MANUFACTURING CO. v. PHIL. OIL INDUSTRY WORKERS UNION

    091 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. L-4091 May 28, 1952 - MARIANO M. PARAS v. COURT OF APPEALS

    091 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. L-4181 May 28, 1952 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. RODOLFO GERARDO

    091 Phil 395

  • G.R. Nos. L-4231 y L-4232 May 28, 1952 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ARTURO ALFARO, ET AL.

    091 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. L-4316 May 28, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HIGINIO MACADAEG, ET AL.

    091 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-4340 May 28, 1952 - REBECCA LEVIN v. JOAQUIN V. BASS

    091 Phil 419

  • G.R. Nos. L-4378-79 May 28, 1952 - MUNICIPALITY OF GATTARAN v. DOROTEO ELIZAGA

    091 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. L-4533 May 28, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO MORALES

    091 Phil 445

  • G.R. No. L-4813 May 28, 1952 - ASSOCIATION OF BEVERAGE EMPLOYEES, ET AL. v. JOSE FIGUERAS

    091 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. L-4229 May 29, 1952 - DALMACIO FALCASANTOS v. HOW SUY CHING

    091 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. L-4373 May 29, 1952 - ENRIQUE BAUTISTA v. LEONCIA REYES

    091 Phil 469

  • G.R. No. L-4683 May 29, 1952 - OLIMPIO NEÑARIA v. JOSE P. VELUZ

    091 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. L-4606 May 30, 1952 - RAMON B. FELIPE v. JOSE N. LEUTERIO, ET AL.

    091 Phil 482