GR L 4132; (May, 1952) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4132 May 23, 1952
FRANCISCO M. ALONZO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
Plaintiff-appellant Francisco M. Alonzo filed a complaint on January 16, 1947, alleging he was the holder of Philippine National Bank circulating notes amounting to P7,000 since before the bank’s liberation. He presented these notes to the defendant-appellee Philippine National Bank for redemption in actual legal currency, but the bank refused. Due to this refusal, he claimed damages of P5,000 from his inability to invest the money or settle other obligations. At trial, he only presented notes amounting to P2,630. The defendant bank raised as a defense Executive Order No. 25, issued on November 18, 1944, which provided that Philippine National Bank notes (except duly authorized emergency issues) were not legal tender and prohibited transactions in them, and that the bank had already redeemed all legally issued circulating notes. The Court of First Instance of Cebu dismissed the complaint on August 11, 1948, without prejudice to the plaintiff’s right to present the bills to the City Treasury of Cebu for redemption under Republic Act No. 211 , which was enacted on July 1, 1948, after the trial but before the decision. Republic Act No. 211 provided for the retirement and redemption of lawfully issued circulating notes and listed the serial numbers of notes that could not be redeemed.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint based on Republic Act No. 211 , which governed the redemption of the bank’s circulating notes. A secondary issue raised on appeal is the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 211 .
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. It held that Republic Act No. 211 was decisive. The appellant’s challenge to the constitutionality of the Act was not permissible, as a question of constitutionality cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The Court noted that while the Act was not in existence during the filing of the complaint and trial, the appellant could have attacked its constitutionality in a motion for reconsideration or new trial in the lower court since the decision was based solely on it. Furthermore, the appellant was not entitled to the claimed damages because his inability to use the notes was due to Executive Order No. 25, which had outlawed them as legal tender and prohibited transactions in them. The decision was affirmed with costs against the appellant.