G.R. No. L-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, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

Guillermo E. Sultan, owner of Backpay Acknowledgment Certificate No. A-73422, sold and assigned his backpay rights to Alfredo A. Jose on November 12, 1958, and executed a notarized special power of attorney authorizing Jose to collect the proceeds. Jose filed his claim with the Backpay Office. Sultan denied the sale and assignment. After an investigation by the Philippine Constabulary, which recommended nullification of the sale, the National Treasurer informed Jose that the corresponding Treasury Warrant would be released to Sultan unless valid cause to the contrary was shown. Jose filed a petition for mandamus and preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the National Treasurer and Sultan, praying for the warrant’s release to him. Sultan, in his answer, alleged his signatures were obtained through fraud and without consideration but did not pray for the contracts’ nullification. At trial, only Jose and the National Treasurer’s counsel appeared; Sultan and his counsel were absent despite notice. The trial court proceeded, with Jose testifying to establish the contracts’ genuineness and validity. The trial court rendered judgment declaring the transfer valid and ordering the National Treasurer to cancel Sultan’s warrant and issue a new one to Jose. The National Treasurer moved for reconsideration, which was denied, and appealed directly to the Supreme Court. Sultan did not appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court’s decision ordering the National Treasurer to cancel the treasury warrant in favor of Sultan and issue a new one to Jose should be affirmed, notwithstanding the National Treasurer’s contentions regarding non-compliance with the Backpay Law’s requirements for transfer and the propriety of the mandamus action.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed decision. The Court held that the trial court’s ruling on the validity of the transfer between Sultan and Jose had become final against Sultan, as he did not appeal. The National Treasurer, who took a direct appeal, did not question the lower court’s jurisdiction nor dispute its ruling on the transfer’s validity. The Court found that the petition, although denominated as one for mandamus and injunction, had effectively served the purpose of a suit for specific performance—the remedy suggested by the National Treasurer as more appropriate. Requiring a separate action would entail an expensive, cumbersome, dilatory proceeding and involve a multiplicity of suits, which is not sanctioned by the Rules of Court and would merely indulge in technicalities.