8/13/2019 Government v. Monte de Piedad.cd

1/1

Parens June 3, 1863 a devastating earthquake occurred in the Philippines. TheSpanish Dominions then provided $400,000.00 as aid for the victims and it was receivedby thePhilippine Treasury. Out of the aid, $80,000.00 was left untouched; it was then invested in theMonte de Piedad Bank which in turn invested the amount in jewelries. But when the Philippine

government later tried to withdraw the saidamount, the bank cannot provide for the amount.The bank argued that the Philippine government is not an affected party hence has no right toinstitute a complaint. Bank argues that the government was not the intended beneficiary of thesaid amount.

Whether or not the Philippine government is competent to file a complaintagainst therespondent

HELD: The Philippine government is competent to institute action against Monte de Piedad, thisis in accordance with the doctrine of Parens Patriae. The government being the protector of therights of the people has the inherent supreme power to enforce such laws that will promote

the public interest. No other party has been entrusted with such right hence as parents of the people the government hasthe right to take back the money intended for the people.

Government v. Monte De Piedad Digest

Facts:

1. Spain paid $400,000 into the treasury of the Philippine Islands for the relief of those damaged by anearthquake.

2. Upon the petition of Monte de Piedad, an institution under the control of the church, the PhilippineGovernment directed its treasurer to give $80,000 of the relief fund in Four (4)4 installments. As a result,various petitions were filed, including the heirs of those entitled to the allotments. All prayed for the Stateto bring suit against Monte de Piedad, and for it to pay with interest.

3. The Defendant appealed since all its funds have been exhausted already on various jewelry loans.

Issue: Whether the government is the proper authority to the cause of action

YES.

The Philippine government, as a trustee towards the funds could maintain the action since there has beenno change of sovereignty. The state, as a sovereign, is the parens patriae of the people. These principlesare based upon public policy. The Philippine Government is not a mere nominal party because it wasexercising its sovereign functions or powers and was merely seeking to carry out a trust developed uponit when the Philippine Islands was ceded to the United States. Finally, if said loan was for ecclesiastical

pious work, then Spain would not exercise its civil capacities.

http://lawsandfound.blogspot.com/2012/11/government-v-monte-de-piedad-digest.htmlhttp://lawsandfound.blogspot.com/2012/11/government-v-monte-de-piedad-digest.htmlhttp://lawsandfound.blogspot.com/2012/11/government-v-monte-de-piedad-digest.html