Larry J. Johnson, Plaintiff-Apellee, vs. Maj. Gen. Howard M. Turner, et al., Defendants-Appellant., G. R. No. L-6118, April 26, 1954 [Supreme Court Decisions]

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

Title: Larry J. Johnson, Plaintiff-Apellee, vs. Maj. Gen. Howard M. Turner, et al., Defendants-Appellant., G. R. No. L-6118, April 26, 1954 [Supreme Court Decisions]
Language: English
Source: The Lawyers Journal XIX (6) June 30, 1954
Year: 1954
Subject: Jurisdiction (International law); Criminal jurisdiction; Court of First Instance -- Manila
Rights
Abstract: [This is an appeal by the defendants from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila ordering them or their successors or representatives to return to plaintiff or his authorized representative the confiscated Military Payment Certificates (Scrip Money) in the reconverted or new series, amounting to $3,713.00.]
Fulltext: ploying hundreds of laborers he had the right to employ nnd dis. charge laborers or at least the anthority to recommend their f'mployment and discharge. Naturally, with such authority, and the laborers knowing it, his urging them to join a certain labor union under threat- of dismissal and his requests for loans even when not repaid, could not well be ignored or rejected by them. Of course, as the order appealed from states, the Lumber company cannot be compelled to defend Catalino de los Santo;;; but that the company should be vitally interested in the investigation against Catalino, there is no doubt. The company is a party to the case. Whether it wants to take part in the investigatio11 and hearing. that is its affair, but it will naturally be bound by any finding and decision of the CIR based on said investigation and hearing. With this understanding and with the consequent modification of the order appealed from, the same is h<'reby affirmed. No costs. Paras, Pablo, Beng:on, Patlilla, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista. Angel9, and Labrador, J.J., concur. x Larry J. Johnson, Plaintiff-.4vpellee, vs. Maj. Gen. Hrm•ard M. Turrter, et al., Defendants-Appelfo.nt., G. R. No. L-6118, April ?.6, 1954, Monte111nyor, J. ACTION AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES; JURISDICTION. - Philippine courts have no ju. risdiction to try cases against the Government of the United States unless said government has given its consent to the filing of such cases. Sizto F. Santiago for appellants. Quinhn F. Pidal for appellee. DECIS I ON MONTEMAYOR, J.: This is an appeal by the defendants from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila ordering them or their succes.. sors or representatiVes to return to plaintiff or his authorized representative the confiscated Militar y Payment Certificates <SCRIP MONEY> in the reconverted or new series, amounting to $~1713.00. For purposes of the present appeal the pertinent facts not disputed arc as follows. Plaintiff-Larry J. Johnson, an American citizen, was formerly employed by the U. S. Army at Okinawa up to August 5, 1950, when he resigned, supposedly in violation of his employment con. tract. In the same month he returned to the Philippines as an American civilian, bringing with him Military Payment Certificates <SCRIP MONEY> in the amount of $3,713.0IJ which sum he claims to have earned while at Okinawa. About five months later, that is, on January 15, 1951, he went to the U.S. Military Port 'of Manila and while there tried to convert said scrip money into U.S. dollars, allegedly for the purpose of sending it to the Unit~d States. Defendant Capt, Wilford H. Hudson Jr., P rovost Mar. 1>hal of the Military Port of Manila in the performance ·of his military duties and claiming that said act of Johnr.on in keeping scrip money and in trying to convert it into dollars was a violation of military circulars, rules and regulations, confiscated said scrip money, gave a receipt therefor and later delivered the scrip money to the military authorities. J ohnson made a formal claim for the return of his ~crip money and upon failure •lf the military authorities to favorably act upon his claim, on July 3, 1951, he ccmmenced the present action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against Major General Howard M. Turner as Commanding General, Philippine Command <Air Force) and 13th Air Force with office at Clark Field; Major Torvald B. Thompson as Finance Officer, Provost Marshal, 13th Air Force with office at Clark Field; and Captain Wilford H. Hudson Jr. as Provost Marshal attached to the Manila Military Port Area, to recover said amount of $3,713.00 "at the reconverted or new series aud to the same f ull worth and value." It may be stated in this connection that shortly after the confiscation of the scrip money in Manila on January 15, 1951, an order was issued by the U.S. military authorities for the conversion of all scrip money then outstanding into a new series, thereby rendering valueless and of no use the old series of which the scrip confiscated from Johnson formed a part, and that was the reason why the prayer contained in Johnson's complaint is for the return not of the very same scrip money Cold series) confiscated, but the sU:m "nt the reconverted or new serieg and to the same full worth and value." The defendants through counsel moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over their persons and over the subject-matter for the reason that they were being sued as defendants in their. respective official capacities as officers of the U.S. Air Force and the action was based on their official actuations, and that the U.S. Government had not given its consent to be sued. The motion for dismissal was denied and the case was heard, after which, the trial court found and hdd that it had jurisdiction because the claim was for the return of plaintiff's scrip money and not for the recovery of a sum of money as Carnages arising from any civil liability of the defenda1}ts;. and that the confiscatory act Of the defendants is contrary to the proYisions of the Philippine constitution prohibiting deprivation of one's property without due process of law. Pursuant to rules and regulations as well as the practice in U.S. military establishments in Okinawa and the Philippines, military payment certificates popularly known as "scrip money" is issued to military and authorized personnel for use exclusively within said military establishments and as sole medium of exchange in lieu of U.S. dollars, the issuance of said scrip money being restricted to ~hose authorized to purchase tax free merchandise at the tax-free agencies of the U.S. Government within its military installations. It is said to be intended as a control mt=asure and to assure that the economy of the Republic of the Philippines will be duly protected. The confiscation of Johnson's scrip money is allegedly based on Circular No. 19, Part I, par. 7<a) of the GHQ, Far East Comnmnd, APO 500, dated March 15, 1949, the pertinent provisions of which read thus: "7. Disposition of Military Payment Certificates. A. Personnel authorized to hold and use military payment certificates prior to departing on leave, temporary duty, or permanent change of status from a military payment certi. ficate areas to areas where military payment certificates are not in authorized use will dispose of their military payment certificates holding prior to departure. Similarly authorized personnel who lose their authorized status are required at the time of such lose to dispose of their military payment or certificate holdings." It is the claim of the defendants that Johnson should have disposed of or converted his scrip money into dollars upon his resignation as employee of the U.S. Government when he lost his authori:.:ed status. and prior- to hi11 departure from Okinawa, and that his possession of said scrip mor.ey in the Philippines, parti. cularly m the Manila Military Port Area was illegal, hence the confiscation. Believing that the main and most important question involved in the appeal is that of jurisdiction, we shall confine our considerations to the same. In the case of Syquia v. Lopez, et al., 47 O.G. 665, where an action was brought 'against U.S. Army officers not only for the recovery of possession of certain apart.. ments occupied by military personnel under .a contract of lease, but also to collect back rents and rents at increased rates includiug damages, we held: 284 THE LA WYERS JOURNAL June 30, 1954 "We shall concede as correctly did the Court of Fii:st Instance, that following the doctrine laid down in the cases of U.S. vs. Lee and U.S. vs. Tindal, supra, a private citizeu clniming tiUe ::md right of possession of a <'ertnin property, may, to r~over possession of ~id property.z sue as individuals, officers, and ag<ints of the Government who r.re said to be illegally withholding the same from him, they in doing so, said officers and agents claim that they are acting for the Government and the court may entertain such a suit although the government itself it not bound or concluded by the dE'cision. The philosophy of this ruling is that unless the courts are pennitted to take cognizance and to assume jurisdiction over such a case, a private citizen would be helplP.ss and without i·cdress and protection of his rights which may have been invaded by the officers of the Government professing to act in its name. In such a case the officials or agents asserting i·ightful possession must prove and justify their claims before the courts, where it is made to appear in the suit against them that the title and right of possession is in the private citizen. However, and this ls important wher~ the judgment in such a case would result not only in the recovery of possession of the property in favor of said cifo:en but also a charge against or financial liability to the Government, then the suit should be regarded as one against the govel-nment itself, and consequently, it cannot prosper or be validly entertained by the courts except with the consent of said Government." In the present case, if the action were merely for the return of th1· scrip money confiscated from plaintiff Johnson, it might yet be said that the action was for the recovery of property illegally withheld by officers and agents of a government professing to have acted as its agents. However, as already sta~d, the present action is for the recovery not of the very scrip money confiscated but for the amount of said scrip in the new series ot military paymer.t certificates, and this was the relief granted by the lower court. Furthermore, if the relief is to be of any benefit to plaintiff ahd since he has already lost his authorized status to possess and use said scrip money, he will have to be given the equivalent of said scrip money in dollars. It is therefore, evident that the claim and the judgment will be a charge against and a financial liability to the U.S. Government because the defendants had undoubtedly acted in their official capacities as agents of saiJ Government, tn say nothing of the fact that said defendants ilad le.mg left the Philippines possibly for other assignments; that was the i·cason the decision appealed from directs the return of the scrip money by the defendants or t1uir successors. Consequently, the present suit should be regarded as an action against tht:: United States Government. It is not disputed that the U.S. Government has not given its consent to be sued.. Therefore, the suit. cannot be entertained by the trial court for Jack of jurisdiction. Another point may be mentioned, tho incidentally, namely, that before the decision was ~ndered by the lower court the plaintiff filed his claim for the same amount of t3,713.00 with the Claims Division, General Accountinng Office, Washington, D.C. However, the record fails to sh:iw the action taken, if any, on ioaid claim. In conclusion, we find and hold that the prt:sent action because of its nature is really a suit against the Government of the United States, and because said Government has not given its consent thereto, the courts, particularly the trial court have no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Because of this, we deem it unnecessary to discuss and rule up•m the propriety and legality of the confiscation made by the defendants, particularly Capt. Wilford H. Hudson, of the scrip money from the plaintiff, and whether or not the latter's filing of his claim with the U.S. Government through its Claims Division, constitutes an abandonment of his claim or suit with the Philippine court. In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is hereby i·eversed and the complaint is dismissed. No pronouncement as to costs. Paras, Pablo, B en9zon, Reyefl, Jugo, Bmitfata Angelo, LabradOT, and Concepcion, J.J., concur. Mr. Justlce Padilla <lid not take part. XI Aurelio G. Gavierc$, Plaintiff-Appellant vs. Emilio Sanchez, L o. re11::0 T. Ona, the President of the Ha,;arin Dairy F<l!Nn, Inc., and f.1 1c P n Jsfrlent of the R<'hal•ilitation Finance Corporation, De/C71dants.Appcllees G.R. No. L-6206, A pril 13, 1954, Jl.lonte-i1iayor, J. CIVIL ACTION; v~;NUF.. - In several <l~cisions rendered by thl' Supreme Court, as late as 1950, wc have held tha.t under Section 3, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court, an actk.n affecting titfo to or recovery of possession of i·eal property must be commenced and tried in the province where Eaid property Hes; that an action for the annulmmt or rescission of the sale of property does not operate to efface the fundameT!tal nnd prime r,bjective a.nd nature of the action which is to recover said real property. A11reUo G. Gavieres for appellant. Cri1:p11lo T. Jl.lanubay, Si~to de la Costa, Alejo F. Ca1vlilt> an:l 'Llominador A. Rodriguez for appellee. DECISION MONTEMAYOR, J: On December 23, l!J50, plaintiff-appellant AURELIO G. GAVIERES filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance '>f Rizal against EMILIO SANCHEZ, LORENZO T. ONA, the President of the HACARIN DAIRY PARM CORPORATION, and the President of the REHABILITATION F INANCE CORPORATION, alleging that in 1931 he was the registered cwner and possessor of 1/3 of No. 2386 of Cadastre No. 13 of San Miguel de 1\-farumo, Bulacan, covered by Origin.ii Certificate of Title No. 12463; that on February 6, 1931, he sold his one-third share of the parcel to Emilio Sanchez for r10,ooo.oo pn.yable as follows: !'200.00 on February 6, 1931, !'1,800.00 at the end of the month, and the balance of PS,000.00 in April of the same year; that Sanchf'.Z immediately took possession of the property purchased and that although he had paid only '2,470.00 of the entire price of !'10,000.00, in the same year hE sold the property to ~renzo T. Ona with right to repurchD.se for !'4,000.00 and upon his failure to mn.ke ~he repurchase ONA c."onsolidated his ownership and secured the cancellation of Original Certificate of 'l'itle No. 1246il and the issuance to him of Transfrr Certificate of Title No. 6640; that in 1041 ONA sold the same property to the HACARIN DAIRY FARM CORPORATION resulting in the cancellation of Transfer C(!rtificate of Title No. 6640 and the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 27257 in the name of the purchaser; and that on September 29, 194'1, the Hacarin Dairy Farm Corporation mortgaged the propnty to the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation in the amount of P'l00,000.00. The cc·mplaint prays among other things that plaintiff be declared real owner and p..:1esessC1r: of the property; that the sale of the same to Sanchez be deelared null and void beca.use of failure to fulfill the conditions of the sale : that the pacto de 1-etro i;ak: to Ona be declared illegal, including the issuance of Transfer Ce1·tificate of Title No. 6640 to him; that the sale by Ona to the Hacarin Dairy Farm Corporation t:e declared inva.Iid and illegal, including the issuance of the corresponding transfer certificate of title and that Lhe mortgage iii favor of the Rehabilitation Fi11ance Corporation be declared illegal and invalid, and that furthermore defendants be =nade to pay dama.ges in the sum of '20,000. 00 . Sanchez filed an answer stating that the facts alleged in the ccmplaint did not constitute sufficient cause of action; that the adiOn had already prescribed, and that the court had no jurisdiction to hear and dttide the case. Ona. filed a moiion to dismiss on the g1·ound of improperly laid venue. The Hacarin Dairy Farm CorJune 30, 1954 THE LAWYERS JOURNAL 285
pages: 284-285