June 1956 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1956 > June 1956 Decisions > [G.R. No. L-9177. June 30, 1956.] ROVINCIAL AUDITOR OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE JOSE TEODORO, SR., Judge, Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, and GORGONIO JAVA, Respondents.:




EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-9177.  June 30, 1956.]

ROVINCIAL AUDITOR OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE JOSE TEODORO, SR., Judge, Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, and GORGONIO JAVA, Respondents.

 

D E C I S I O N

BENGZON, J.:

Statement. — The Petitioner challenges the Respondent judge’s order of May 14, 1955, requiring him to authorize the refund in legal currency of “script” or “guerrilla” money deposited as bail bond in 1945. At his request, we issued a preliminary injunction temporarily to restrain the enforcement of said directive.

Facts. — In Criminal Case No. 416 of the court of first instance of Negros Occidental, in August, 1945, Gorgonio Java as bondsman for the accused Fe Villavecer, deposited with the Municipal Treasurer of Gadiz, same province, the sum of five hundred pesos in guerrilla or “script” money. Said Treasurer’s receipt expressly noted:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary “Dep. in script”. On January 14, 1945, upon motion of the fiscal, the court dismissed the case and directed the cancellation of the bond.

On May 3, 1955, upon motion of Gorgonio Java, filed the previous month, the Respondent judge entered an order, in said criminal case, requiring the provincial auditor, (herein Petitioner) to sign the voucher for the release of the cash bond deposit. The said auditor signed the corresponding voucher, remarking however that payment shall be made in “script money”. The bondsman again asked the court for a directive for the return in legal tender of the amount he had deposited. After some court skirmishes, and after listening to the auditor’s counsel, the Respondent judge finally ruled on May 14, 1955 that the cash bond must be returned in legal tender, and commanded said official accordingly to make the corresponding release within five days. An urgent motion to reconsider was promptly denied. Hence this petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction which was given due course.

Discussion. — It is at once apparent that in the Criminal Case No. 416 the provincial auditor was not a party. Wherefore, the orders of the court therein do not normally bind him, unlike the ministerial officers of the court, the sheriff, clerk of court, etc. True, the auditor was furnished copy of the motion to release, and subsequently appeared to contest the petition. However he raised substantial questions, which should not have been decided summarily on a mere motion, to wit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary reimbursement in 1955 in legal tender of guerrilla money “deposited” in 1945; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryvalidity of said money; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryerror in the acceptance thereof; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryapplicability and operation of Republic Acts 386 and 22 concerning redemption and registration of guerrilla currency; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarylaches; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryno funds available. These are matters which, with other subsidiary issues, should have been debated in a separate suit (mandamus) against the auditor, who, as already observed, was not a party to the criminal case.

Anyway, Respondents might argue, the result is the same, because these matters could be litigated, and in fact have been discussed, in the case; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand thereby a “speedy and inexpensive determination” of the question was obtained, in accordance with Rule 1 section 2 of the Rules of Court.

The argument may not be sustained. For one thing if mandamus were instituted by Gorgonio Java against the auditor to compel release of the money in legal tender, the Respondent therein could set up one good defense 1 , the explanation he offered in his pleadings herein and in the court below:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary that he had consulted the Auditor General, and that the Petitioner’s remedy was to appeal his ruling to said higher official of the Executive Branch. 2 Such defense would have been effective in a mandamus proceeding; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryyet it received no attention in the consideration of Java’s motion for reimbursement. If Respondents should demur to the institution of another action asserting it is not speedy and is expensive, and therefore obnoxious to the spirit of section 2 Rule 1, they should remember that the purpose of the rules of procedure is to promote not only the speedy and inexpensive determination of issues, but also the just decision thereof; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand it is not fair to adjudge an issue in a proceeding where the person to be affected is not a regular party, and, what is worse, cannot properly assert a defense particularly approved by statutes and precedents.

Judgment. — For the above reasons, the order complained of is revoked. The injunction heretofore issued is hereby made permanent. Costs against Respondent Gorgonio Java.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., and Endencio, JJ., concur.

 

Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

  1.  Besides those already mentioned.

  2.  Section 3 Rule 67; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarySherman vs. Horrilleno, 57 Phil., 13; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryManotoc vs. McMicking, 11 Phil., 119; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryCruz Herrera vs. McMicking, 14 Phil., 641 and others.




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






June-1956 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. L-8222. June 25, 1956.] GREGORIO TARCA and RODOLFO TARCA CASTRO, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. ANGELES CASON VDA. DE CARRETERO, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8294. June 25, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. AURELIO LABAY, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8384. June 25, 1956.] GO GUIOC SIAN, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. JUDGE CIRILO MACEREN, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-5996. June 27, 1956.] RAFAEL A. DINGLASAN, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. LEE BUN TING, ANG CHIA, in her capacity as widow of the deceased Lee Liong, as well as judicial administratrix of the properties of said deceased, and CLARO LEE, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-7599. June 27, 1956.] MARTHA LUMBER MILL, INC., Petitioner, vs. ROMANA V. LAGRADANTE, for herself and as guardian of her minor children LETICIA and PEDRO, JR., PALENCIA, and ERLINA LAGRADANTE and the WORKMEN�S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-7956. June 27, 1956.] In the matter of the petition of MANUEL LI KWONG to be admitted a citizen of the Philippines: MANUEL LI KWONG, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-7266. June 28, 1956.] VICTORY LINER, INC., Petitioner, vs. SAULOG TRANSIT, INC., and PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8029. June 28, 1956.] EMILIA ESPIQUE and SANTIAGO ESPIQUE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. JACINTO ESPIQUE, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8611. June 28, 1956.] SEVERINO P. JUSTO, Petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8860. June 28, 1956.] ADRIANO B. VELASQUEZ, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE JOSE GIL, as Commissioner of Civil Service, HONORABLE A. H. LACSON, as Mayor, City of Manila, and THE HONORABLE MUNICIPAL BOARD, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8318. June 29, 1956.] PEDRO F. SIOCHI, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSE T. TIRONA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [Adm. Case No. 180. June 30, 1956.] LUIS N. DE LEON, complainant, vs. JOSE Y. TORRES, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-7407. June 30, 1956.] ATLAS TRADE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. F. LIMGENCO CO., LTD., doing business under the name and style of WILLIAMS INTERNATIONAL, LTD., FRANCISCO LIMGENCO, JR., WILLIAM HERMAN, TED LEWIN AND PAUL MACDONALD, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-7466. June 30, 1956.] MARIA ROSADO RUIZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. LOURDES T. PAGUIO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8110. June 30, 1956.] MARINDUQUE IRON MINES AGENTS, INC., Petitioner, vs. THE WORKMEN�S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, THE HEIRS OF PEDRO MAMADOR and GERONIMO MA. COLL, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8715. June 30, 1956.] PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., Petitioner, vs. ANTONIO BALANGUIT, ET AL., (PUBLIC UTILITIES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION [FEATI CHAPTER] and THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8814. June 30, 1956.] EUGENIO DE LA CRUZ, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JUAN BOCAR and HONORABLE EMILIO RILLORAZA, Acting Judge and Vacationing Judge, respectively, of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasay City Branch, and the RUFINA AND COMPANY, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9223. June 30, 1956.] EDUARDO BRILLANTES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. LEONARDO CASTRO, doing business under the name and style of �ALMACAS POLICE PROTECTIVE BUREAU�, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-9177. June 30, 1956.] ROVINCIAL AUDITOR OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE JOSE TEODORO, SR., Judge, Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, and GORGONIO JAVA, Respondents.