Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Bacani Vs Nacoco

    Uploaded by

    HenteLAWco
    51 views1 page
    Plaintiffs Bacani and Matoto, court stenographers, provided transcripts of a hearing to counsel for the National Coconut Corporation (NACOCO) and billed NACOCO for their fees. However, the Auditor General required Plaintiffs to reimburse NACOCO, claiming that as a government entity NACOCO was exempt from such fees. The Court held that while NACOCO was organized to promote the coconut industry, it was given separate corporate status under the Corporation Law and could sue and be sued like a private corporation. Therefore, NACOCO was not a government entity and was not exempt from paying transcript fees to the plaintiff stenographers.

    Original Description:

    Political law case

    Original Title

    Bacani vs Nacoco

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Plaintiffs Bacani and Matoto, court stenographers, provided transcripts of a hearing to counsel for the National Coconut Corporation (NACOCO) and billed NACOCO for their fees. However, the Auditor General required Plaintiffs to reimburse NACOCO, claiming that as a government entity NACOCO was exempt from such fees. The Court held that while NACOCO was organized to promote the coconut industry, it was given separate corporate status under the Corporation Law and could sue and be sued like a private corporation. Therefore, NACOCO was not a government entity and was not exempt from paying transcript fees to the plaintiff stenographers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    51 views1 page

    Bacani Vs Nacoco

    Uploaded by

    HenteLAWco
    Plaintiffs Bacani and Matoto, court stenographers, provided transcripts of a hearing to counsel for the National Coconut Corporation (NACOCO) and billed NACOCO for their fees. However, the Auditor General required Plaintiffs to reimburse NACOCO, claiming that as a government entity NACOCO was exempt from such fees. The Court held that while NACOCO was organized to promote the coconut industry, it was given separate corporate status under the Corporation Law and could sue and be sued like a private corporation. Therefore, NACOCO was not a government entity and was not exempt from paying transcript fees to the plaintiff stenographers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Bacani Vs Nacoco [G.R. No. L-9657.

    November 29, 1956




    Facts: Plaintiffs herein are court stenographers assigned in Branch VI of the Court of First
    Instance of Manila. During the pendency of Civil Case No. 2293 of said court, entitled Francisco
    Sycip vs. National Coconut Corporation, Assistant Corporate Counsel Federico Alikpala, counsel
    for Defendant ,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 Leopoldo T. Bacaniand P150 to Mateo A. Matoto for said transcript at the rate of P1 per
    page 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 the National
    Coconut Corporation, being a government entity, was exempt from the payment of the fees in
    question.

    Issue :WON NACOCO IS NACOCO is a Government Entity

    Held: They do not acquire that status for the simple reason that they do not come under the
    classification of municipal or public corporation. Take for instance the National Coconut
    Corporation. While it 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 in so far as its corporate existence and
    the powers that it may exercise are concerned (sections 2 and 4, Commonwealth Act No. 518).
    It may sue and be sued in the same manner as any other private corporations, and in this sense
    it is an entity different from our government. As this Court has aptly said, The mere fact that
    the Government happens to be a majority stockholder does not make it a public. the term
    Government of the Republic of the Philippines used in section 2 of the Revised Administrative
    Code refers only to that government entity through which the functions of the government are
    exercised as an attribute of sovereignty, and in this are included those arms through which
    political authority is made effective whether they be provincial, municipal or other form of local
    government. These are what we call municipal corporations. They do not include government
    entities which are given a corporate personality separate and distinct from the government and
    which are governed by the 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