G.R. No. 22463. March 31, 1967
ALFREDO A. JOSE, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. HON. VICENTE G. GELLA, AS TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL., RESPONDENTS, HON. VICENTE G. GELLA, AS TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES, RE…
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:
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:
“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.”
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 back-pay 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.
Makalintal, J., took no part.
Bengzon, J., concurs in the
result.