Scribd
Upload
255 views

Bacani vs. Nacoco

Plaintiffs were court stenographers who provided a transcript of 714 pages to counsel for NACOCO. NACOCO paid the stenographers P564 and P150 respectively. However, the Auditor General later disallowed the payments, claiming NACOCO was exempt as a government entity. The Auditor General then sought to deduct the amounts from the stenographers' salaries. The stenographers sued to prevent the deductions and determine if NACOCO was exempt under Rule 130. The court ruled that while NACOCO was organized to promote the coconut industry, it was given separate corporate powers subject to corporation law, not government. Therefore, NACOCO was not exempt from paying stenographers' fees

Uploaded by

Gary Velasquez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
255 views

Bacani vs. Nacoco

Plaintiffs were court stenographers who provided a transcript of 714 pages to counsel for NACOCO. NACOCO paid the stenographers P564 and P150 respectively. However, the Auditor General later disallowed the payments, claiming NACOCO was exempt as a government entity. The Auditor General then sought to deduct the amounts from the stenographers' salaries. The stenographers sued to prevent the deductions and determine if NACOCO was exempt under Rule 130. The court ruled that while NACOCO was organized to promote the coconut industry, it was given separate corporate powers subject to corporation law, not government. Therefore, NACOCO was not exempt from paying stenographers' fees

Uploaded by

Gary Velasquez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

BACANI VS.

NACOCO
100 PHIL. 468 (1956)

Facts:

Plaintiffs are court stenographers assigned in Branch VI of the CFI of
Manila. During the pendency of a civil case of said court, entitled Francisco Sycip
vs. NACOCO, Assistant Corporate Counsel Federico Alikpala, counsel
for NACOCO, requested said stenographers for copies of the transcript of the
stenographic notes taken by them during the hearing. Plaintiffs complied with the
request by delivering to Counsel Alikpala the needed transcript containing 714
pages and thereafter submitted to him their bills for the payment of their fees. The
National Coconut Corporation paid the amount of P564 to Bacani and P150 to
Matoto for said transcript at the rate of P1 per page.

Upon inspecting the books of this corporation, the Auditor General
disallowed the payment of these fees and sought the recovery of the amounts paid.
On January 1953, 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 NACOCO, being a government entity, was exempt
from the payment of the fees in question.

On Feb 1954, the Auditor General issued an order directing the Cashier of
the DOJ to deduct from the salary of Bacani the amount of P25 every payday and
from the salary of Matoto the amount of P10 every payday beginning March 30,
1954. To prevent deduction of these fees from their salaries and secure a judicial
ruling that the NACOCO is not a government entity within the purview of section
16, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, this action was instituted in the CFI of Manila.

Issue:

WON NACOCO is exempted from paying the stenographers fees under
Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.



Ruling:
No, it is not exempted from paying the stenographers fees under Rule 130
of the Rules of Court. The National Coconut Corporation 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.
Their powers, duties and liabilities have to be determined in the light of that law
and of their corporate charters. They do not therefore come within the exemption
clause prescribed in section 16, Rule 130 of our Rules of Court.

You might also like