ROBERT S. CLEMONS, petitioner, vs. WILLIAM T.

NOLTING, as Auditor of the

1922-01-24 | G.R. No. 17959

DECISION

JOHNSON, J.:

This is an original action commenced in the Supreme Court for the writ of mandamus. Its purpose is to
compel the respondent "to countersign or cause to be countersigned the original warrant, a copy of which is
set forth in paragraph 10 of the complaint, and to deliver the same to the plaintiff so that he may present it to
the Treasurer of the Philippine Islands and receive payment thereon in the sum of P73.33, an amount which
is alleged to be due him by the Government of the Philippine Islands."

The cause was submitted to the court upon the following stipulated facts:

1. That plaintiff is a citizen of the United States, temporarily residing in the city of Manila, Philippine Islands.

2. That defendant, William T. Nolting, is the duly appointed, qualified and acting Auditor of the Government of
the Philippine Islands.

3. That on June 18, 1920, the Honorable Charles E. Yeater, then Acting Governor-General of the Philippine
Islands, cabled the Secretary of War of the United States, of Washington, D. C., as follows:

"Appoint as early as possible after June 30th, 1920, John Deering and Robert S. Clemons each to position
mechanical and electrical engineer, effective the date of departure from residence, under special contracts to
expire December 31st, 1921. Straight salary $4,000 per annum, with transportation from residence to the
Philippine Islands and return, without civil service privileges. Advance transportation and request them to sail
first available vessel."

4. That in accordance with the authority contained in the said cablegram, above cited, the Secretary of War,
through the Bureau of Insular Affairs, employed plaintiff on behalf of the Government of the Philippine Islands,
and under date of August 6, 1920, wrote plaintiff, confirming the agreement entered into, as follows:

"WAR DEPARTMENT

"BUREAU OF INSULAR AFFAIRS

"WASHINGTON. August 6, 1920.

"Major R. S. CLEMONS,

"Air Photo Detachment,

"SIR: In accordance with specific authority contained in a cablegram from the Governor-General of the
Philippine Islands, dated June 18, 1920, you are hereby provisionally appointed to the position of electrical
and mechanical engineer in the Philippine Bureau of Public Works, under special contract to expire December
31, 1921, at a straight salary of $4,000 per annum. This appointment is effective as of date of departure from
your residence. You will be furnished transportation from your place of residence in the United States to the
Philippine Islands and return upon the completion of the contract period, but you will not be entitled to civil
service privileges of leaves, etc. Upon your arrival in Manila you should report at the office of the Director of
| Page 1 of 9
Public Works.

"Kindly acknowledge your acceptance of this appointment by signing the inclosed copy hereof and returning it
to this bureau at once.

"We are unable at this time to give you definite information concerning the date of the vessel on which we will
be able to secure accommodations for you, but you will be advised by wire as soon as a reservation is
obtainable.

"Very respectfully,

"CHAS. C. WALCUTT, jr.,

"Assistant to Chief of Bureau.

"Incl.: Copy of this letter."

5. That plaintiff received the letter set forth in the paragraph next preceding, at Tucson, Arizona, and
immediately replied in writing, accepting employment by the Philippine Government under the terms of the
said letter, and promptly sailed for Manila and entered upon and is still engaged in the discharge of his duties
in the Bureau of Public Works of the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands under the terms of the said
contract.

6. That on the 1st day of February, 1921, at the rates of exchange then prevailing as fixed by the Insular
Government of the Philippine Islands, the equivalent of $333.33, United States currency, in Philippine
currency was P739.99, and no sum of money in Philippine currency less than P739.99 would at that time
purchase $333.33 in United States currency.

7. That on or about the 1st day of February, 1921, the chief accountant of the Bureau of Public Works of the
Government of the Philippine Islands tendered plaintiff a warrant on the Treasurer of the Philippine Islands in
the sum of P666.66, Philippine currency, in full payment of his salary for the month of January, 1921.

8. That plaintiff declined to accept the said sum in full discharge of his January, 1921, salary, but insisted that
under his contract with the Philippine Government he was and is entitled to receive each month as
compensation for his services the sum of $333.33 in United States currency, or a sum in Philippine currency
sufficient to enable him to purchase the sum of $333.33 in United States currency at the rates of exchange
prevailing on the date of each payment, and demanded that he be paid an additional sum of P73.33, which,
with the sum of P666.66, would be the equivalent at the then prevailing official rates of exchange of the sum
of $333.33, United States currency.

9. That the said chief accountant of the Bureau of Public Works, notwithstanding plaintiff 's demand, declined
and refused to issue plaintiff a warrant for the payment of his January, 1921, salary in any sum in excess of
the sum of P666.66, whereupon plaintiff accepted the said sum of P666.66, under protest, and as constituting
only a partial payment of his salary for the said month of January, 1921. That plaintiff insistently continued his
demands upon the chief accountant of the Bureau of Public Works for a warrant on the Treasurer of the
Philippine Islands for the payment of the sum of P73.33 to complete the payment of plaintiff's salary for
January, 1921, whereupon the said chief accountant, on August 8, 1921, upon such demand, issued in favor
of plaintiff a warrant on the Treasurer of the Philippine Islands in words and figures as follows, to wit:

"No. 833906.

"THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.

| Page 2 of 9
"TO ROBERT S. CLEMONS, C/o Design. Division, B. P. W.

"Date, Aug. 8, 1921. Dr.

"Appropriation, Bureau of Public Works. P73.33.

"I certify that the foregoing account is correct, just and payable in accordance with law and regulations.

"R. REINOSO,

"Chief Accountant,

"Bureau of Public Works/dp.

"D.

"Treasury Warrant.

No. 833906.

"THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.

"Issued under sec. 616,

Adm. Code.

"To the TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS:

"MANILA, P. I., August 8, 1921.

"Pay to Robert S. Clemons --- or order the sum of seventy-three and 3/100 ------ pesos (P73.33).

"Payable from the appropriation for Bureau of Public Works.

"Countersigned:

"Not valid unless countersigned,

"R. REINOSO,
"Chief Accountant,
"Bureau of Public Works.
__________________

| Page 3 of 9
"For the Insular Auditor.
"For premium on P666.66
Jan. salary at the rate of 11%
to cover the diff. between dol
lars and Phil. currency."

10. That plaintiff caused the said warrant, a copy of which is set forth in the paragraph next preceding, to be
presented to the defendant herein, William T. Nolting, for audit by him in his official capacity as Auditor of the
Philippine Government, in accordance with the laws and regulations governing the auditing department of the
Philippine Government: but the said defendant refused and still refuses to audit the said warrant or to
countersign the same, upon the ground that notwithstanding the terms of plaintiff's contract with the Philippine
Government, his salary is payable in Philippine currency at the rate of two pesos for each dollar in United
States currency due plaintiff regardless of the real value of such pesos or the rate at which they may be
exchangeable into United States currency.

11. That unless the defendant countersigns or causes to be countersigned the said warrant, hereinabove
mentioned, the same will not be paid by the Treasurer of the Philippine Islands, and plaintiff will be unable to
collect and receive the said sum of P73.33 from the Philippine Government, although the necessary funds for
the payment thereof are available in the hands of the Insular Treasurer and may be disbursed upon the
presentation of the warrant above set forth, when countersigned by the defendant.

The only question presented under said stipulated facts is, may the Government of the Philippine Islands,
when it enters into a contract with an officer or employee under a promise to pay his salary in "dollars," pay
such salary in Philippine currency at the rate of two to one if the officer or employee insists that his salary
should be paid in the terms (specie) of his contract? From the stipulated facts it is seen that the Government
promised to pay to the petitioner his salary in "dollars ;" that the contract was made in the United States; that
the Government offered to pay the petitioner in "Philippine currency" at the rate of two to one; that at the time
the payment in question was offered, Philippine currency was at a discount; that two pesos in Philippine
currency was not equivalent to one "dollar" and the petitioner insisted that his salary should be paid in "dollars"
or their equivalent value.

The petitioner in his first proposition contends that "the use of the dollar sign '$' in a written contract executed
in the United States, signifies dollars in the United States money." That proposition is admitted by the
respondent. The respondent admits that the dollar sign, as found in the contract, stands for dollars in money
of the United States, Both the petitioner and the respondent admit that the mark used to denote dollar has
obtained general currency and conveys the idea of dollars as definitely as the word "dollars" itself; hence it is
not a valid objection to a judgment when the amount thereof is expressed only in figures, preceded by the
dollar mark before the word "dollars" written in the judgment. (Kelley vs. Sullivan, 201 Mass., 34; Devenney vs.
Devenney, 70 Ohio St., 96; United States vs. Van Auken, 96 U. S., 366, 368.)

The petitioner further contends that a contract for the payment of money, expressed in terms of the United
States dollars, made in the United States, to be performed in the Philippine Islands, can be discharged only
by the payment of the required amount in United States money or in Philippine pesos of an equivalent
commercial value.

The respondent contends that under the laws in force in the Philippine Islands a debt of the Government,
payable in "dollars," may be paid in Philippine currency at the rate of two to one even though the debt grew
out of a special contract which provided that the same should be paid in "dollars."

It is true that the Legislature of the Philippine Islands has provided, by section 1613 of Act No. 2711, as
amended by Act No. 2776, that "the Philippine silver pesos and the gold coins of the United States, at the rate
of one dollar for two pesos, shall be a legal tender in the Philippine Islands for all debts, public and private" . .
. To arrive at a better understanding of the purposes of the section just quoted, it might be well to trace the

| Page 4 of 9
history of the legislation on the question of the legal tender character of Philippine currency. As early as
March 2, 1903, the Congress of the United States adopted an act establishing a unit of value for the money
currency of the Philippine Islands. Said Act provided, among other things, "that the unit of value in the
Philippine Islands shall be the gold peso, consisting of twelve and nine-tenths grains of gold, nine tenths fine,
etc.; and the gold coins of the United States at the rate of one dollar for two pesos . . . shall be legal tender for
all debts, public and private, in the Philippine Islands; that the silver Philippine peso, authorized by this Act,
shall be legal tender in the Philippine Islands for all debts, public and private, unless otherwise specifically
provided by contract." Later, by an Act of the Philippine Legislature (section 1771 of Act No. 2657) it was
provided that "the Philippine silver peso shall be a legal tender for all debts, public and private, unless
otherwise specially provided by contract." That provision of Act No. 2657 was carried forward and made
section 1613 of Act No. 2711 as above quoted, without change The unit of value fixed by the said Act of
Congress for the Philippine Islands was again fixed by section 1770 of Act No. 2657, which was carried
forward and made section 1612 of Act No. 2711. The unit of monetary value in the Philippine Islands, as
defined by the Act of Congress of March 2, 1903, was carried forward and adopted by the Philippine
Legislature in the said Acts Nos. 2657, 2711, and 2776. Act No. 2776, however, omitted the phrase which
was found in the former legislation "unless otherwise specially provided by contract." The purpose of the
omission of that phrase does not clearly appear.

All of the legislation both by Congress and by the Philippine Legislature, prior to Act No. 2776, limited the
legal tender character of the "silver peso" to the payment of debts, public and private, when the contract did
not otherwise provide. Did the omission of that provision in Act No. 2776 make the tender of the Philippine
silver peso, at the rate provided for in defining the unit of value, a legal tender for the payment of debts, public
and private, when the contract expressly provided for payment of other specie? Could the Legislature of the
Philippine Islands or even Congress alter or change the obligation of the contract between the parties? The
Act of July 1, 1902, as well as the Jones Act of August 29, 1916, prohibit absolutely the Legislature of the
Philippine Islands from adopting any legislation which would impair the "obligations of contracts." The right of
the legislative department of the state to adopt legislation changing or altering the obligation of contract has
been answered in the negative so many times that it scarcely merits the citation of authorities now in its
support. (Casanovas vs. Hord, 8 Phil., 125; Trustees of Dartmouth College vs. Woodward, 4 Wheaton [U. S.],
518; McGee vs. Mathis, 4 Wallace, 143.)

It is of the utmost importance to note that neither in the cited Act of Congress nor in section 1613 of the
Administrative Code, as amended, is any attempt made to determine the ratio at which debts, expressed in
terms of United States money and payable in the Philippine Islands, may be discharged by the tender and
payment of Philippine silver pesos. Both the Act of Congress and section 1613 of the Administrative Code
provide that debts due in Philippine silver pesos may be discharged by the payment of "gold coins of the
United States at the rate of one dollar for two pesos," but the converse proposition is nowhere to be found in
the law. The reason for this is very plain. Congress by its own act had so limited the maximum value of the
gold peso that in no event could it be worth more than half a United States gold dollar; but Congress had not
itself undertaken to maintain the parity of the Philippine peso at the theoretical ratio of two for one. Congress
did not provide for the establishment of a gold standard fund, or prescribe any other method by which the
artificial parity between the Philippine silver peso and United States money should be maintained. It merely
authorized the Government of the Philippine Islands to ". . . adopt such measures as it may deem proper, not
inconsistent with said Act of July 1st, 1902, to maintain the value of the silver Philippine peso at the rate of
one gold peso . . ."

The "measures" which were adopted by the Philippine Government for the purpose of maintaining the parity
of the silver peso with the theoretical gold peso and United States currency were embodied in Act No. 938 of
the Philippine Commission, adopted October 10th, 1903, the purpose of which was stated by the late
Governor Ide, then Secretary of Finance and Justice of the Philippine Government, in his official report for the
year 1903, as follows:

"The theory of the Act of Congress referred to and of the gold-standard act passed by the Commission is

| Page 5 of 9
substantially that a gold-standard circulating medium may be maintained at a parity with gold without any
large use of a gold currency by the aid of the means provided for maintaining the parity between the two
currencies. The essential elements of the system are based upon the maintenance of a reasonable
gold-standard fund, the rigid restriction of the amount of new coinage so as to meet only the demand of
commerce, the retirement of a sufficient amount of such coinage whenever it shall become apparent that
there is more in circulation than the demands of commerce require, the issuance of more of the new currency
whenever it becomes apparent that there is a shortage of such currency in circulation, and the furnishing of
reasonable facilities for the conversion of gold coin or other money of the United States into Philippine
currency, or the reverse, as the demands of commerce may require . . ."

The procedure relied upon to accomplish the purpose of maintaining the parity as stated in Act No. 938 was
the creation in the Insular Treasury of a "gold standard fund," which, as provided by section 7 of the Act, was
to be used as follows:

"First. To exchange on demand at the Insular Treasury in Manila for Philippine currency offered in sums of not
less than ten thousand pesos, or United States currency offered in sums of not less than five thousand dollars,
drafts on the gold-standard fund deposited in the United States or elsewhere to the credit of the Insular
Treasury, charging for the same a premium of three-quarters of one per centum for demand drafts and of one
and one-eighth per centum for telegraphic transfers, and it is further made the duty of the Insular Treasurer to
direct the depositories of the funds of the Philippine Government in the United States to sell on demand, in
sums of not less than ten thousand pesos, exchange against the gold-standard fund in the Philippine Islands,
charging for the same a premium of three. quarters of one per centum for demand drafts and of one and
one-eighth per centum for telegraphic transfers, rendering accounts therefor to the Insular Treasurer and
Insular Auditor. But the premium charge for drafts and telegraphic transfers in this paragraph mentioned may
be temporarily increased or decreased by order issued by the Secretary of Finance and Justice should the
conditions at any time existing, in his judgment, require such action . . ."

It will be noted that the possibility that the peso might not be kept at all times at par was contemplated from
the beginning. The last paragraph of the quoted section of Act No. 938 of the Philippine Commission required
the Insular Treasurer to sell gold drafts on the United States in exchange for Philippine currency at a nominal
charge of three-fourths of one per cent; but provided that this premium charge might be "temporarily
increased or decreased by order issued by the Secretary of Finance and Justice should the conditions at any
time existing, in his judgment. require such action."

This provision has been carried through successive enactments into section 1621 of the Administrative Code,
which, as amended first by Act No. 2776 and again by Act No. 2939, now provides as follows:

"For the purpose of maintaining the parity of the Philippine silver peso with the Philippine gold peso, and of
keeping the currency equal in volume only to the demands of trade, the Insular Treasurer is hereby
authorized and directed -

"(a) To exchange on demand at the Insular Treasury in Manila for Philippine currency offered in sums of not
less than ten thousand pesos or United States currency offered in sums of not less than five thousand dollars,
drafts on the currency reserve fund deposited in the United States or elsewhere to the credit of the Insular
Treasury, charging for the same a premium of three-quarters of one per centum for demand drafts and of one
and one-eighth per centum for telegraphic transfers, and it is further made the duty of the Insular Treasurer to
direct the depositories of the funds of the Philippine Government in the United States to sell on demand, in
sums of not less than ten thousand pesos, exchange against the currency reserve fund in the Philippine
Islands, charging or paying for the same a premium of three-quarters of one per centum for demand drafts
and of one and one-eighth per centum for telegraphic transfers, rendering accounts therefor to the Insular
Treasurer and Insular Auditor. But the premium rate for drafts and telegraphic transfers in this paragraph
mentioned may be temporarily increased or decreased by order issued by. the Secretary of Finance should
the conditions at any time existing, in his judgment, require such action, and the Governor-General, upon

| Page 6 of 9
recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, may suspend for such time as he sees fit, the sale of exchange
to any individual, firm, company or corporation, or he may require before selling any exchanges such proofs
and affidavits as he deems sufficient that such exchange is needed in legitimate Philippine business and
could not have been legitimately supplied by proceeds of Philippine exports . . ."

As the maintenance of the parity of the Philippine silver peso depends wholly upon the ability and willingness
of the Philippine Government to accept its own money in payment for drafts payable in gold dollars in the
United States, and as the normal nominal rate of exchange intended to maintain and establish that parity has
not been fixed by Congress or the Philippine Legislature, but may be increased at any time by order of the
Secretary of Finance of the Philippine Government, whenever existing conditions, in his judgment, require
such action, it is obvious that it must have been evident from the very inception of our present system of
currency that while the Philippine peso could never be worth more than the United States gold dollar, it might
be worth very much less. That no doubt is the reason why Congress, while providing that debts due here in
pesos might be discharged by the payment of gold coin of the United States, at the rate of one dollar for two
pesos, did not provide that a debt, due here in United States gold dollars, might be paid in Philippine pesos at
the rate of two pesos for one dollar. The breakdown of the gold reserve fund, and the consequent
depreciation of the Philippine. peso, are now matters of history. Under existing conditions, to compel a
creditor to whom a debt in United States currency is owing, to accept two Philippine paper pesos in
satisfaction of every gold dollar of that debt is nothing short of a discount, and pro tanto a partial repudiation
of a legal obligation.

In the opinion of the Acting Attorney-General, of which mention has been made, it is said, in referring to the
cited section of the Administrative Code, as amended:

"This Act established two kinds of lawful money with which debts may be paid: pesos and dollars. An ordinary
debtor is at liberty to pay his debt with either."

This statement is undoubtedly correct; but the fact that a debtor may at his option discharge his debt either in
dollars or in pesos is by no means equivalent to the statement that he may at his option pay one dollar or two
pesos. The contention is that he may at his option pay- one dollar in United States gold coin or as many
Philippine pesos as at the prevailing rate of exchange are the equivalent in value of one dollar.

While the respondent contends, under the laws in force in the Philippine Islands, that a debt of the
Government payable in dollars may be paid in Philippine currency at the rate of two to one, he overlooks the
fact that section 1613 makes the Philippine silver peso and the gold coins of the United States at the rate of
one dollar for two pesos, a legal tender in the Philippine Islands for all debts, public and private, and not the
Philippine paper peso. If the Government can discharge a contract, payable in dollars, by tendering Philippine
paper pesos, then merchants and others who contract debts payable expressly in dollars may also discharge
their debts in a like manner. If such doctrine should be announced, then no manufacturer or person would
take the risk of contracting obligations here for future payments. They would insist in every instance upon
cash transactions. They would not run the risk of future fluctuations in the value of the paper peso. That would
immediately produce an impossible condition in commercial and business circles in the Philippine Islands.

It is a well-known fact that the Government has not been willing to accept the Philippine paper peso at the
rate of two to one for gold or dollars. Does it not seem at least strange that it should insist that its creditors
must be satisfied with such a settlement of its debt?

The issue is precisely the same as it would be had the Philippine Government executed a bond in the United
States, in terms of the United States "dollars," payable in Manila, but without an express stipulation that it
should be paid in gold dollars or in any particular kind of the United States money. If the Government may pay
plaintiff in depreciated pesos at the nominal instead of the real par of exchange, then it might pay its dollar
bond in the same way. If the Government can do this, then Manila merchants can pay their dollar drafts in
depreciated pesos at the nominal par, regardless of their real value; American seamen may have their dollar

| Page 7 of 9
pay in this port in forty-cent pesos; the United States may pay its soldiers stationed here in the cheap money,
and effect a considerable saving at their expense. This, of course. would be repudiation, in part, of a just debt;
but if reputation is permissible as to the debt of the Insular Government to this plaintiff, then it is permissible,
legally at least, to all other debtors, and must be endured, at least as to existing debts by all other creditors.
We submit that the mere statement of the results which must flow from the recognition of the principle
contended for by the respondent, and involved in a denial of the plaintiff claim, is sufficient to refute every
argument which may be advanced to support it. Plaintiff, and the hundreds of teachers and other employees
of the Insular Government affected by the depreciation of the Philippine paper peso are merely asking for fair
treatment, for an honest compliance on the part of the Government with its part of the agreement. We do not
doubt that, as a matter of fact the defendant herein and every responsible official of the Philippine
Government recognizes the justice of the plaintiff's contention, and that the necessity for this rule has arisen
from an apprehension lest their natural tendency to do what they know to be right and fair may constitute a
technical violation of the law.

The contention on the part of the respondent that the Philippine paper peso is a legal tender for the payment
of a contractual debt, when some other specie has not been provided, is not tenable for the reason that it
violates the terms of the express contract.

A contract to pay a certain sum in money, without any stipulation as to the kind of money in which it shall be
paid, may always be satisfied by payment of that sum in any currency which is lawful money at the place and
time at which payment is to be made. That is the general rule, under both the common and the civil law. But
when the contract stipulates the specie or kind or character of money for the performance of the contract, it
must be satisfied in the medium of payment mentioned in the contract.

That doctrine is established and affirmed by the law in force in the Philippine Islands. The Civil Code, still in
force in the Philippine Islands, by article 1170, provides expressly that "payments of debts of money shall be
made in the specie stipulated and, should it not be possible to deliver such specie, in silver or gold coin legally
current in Spain." Article 1754 of the Civil Code provides that the obligations of persons who borrow money
shall be governed by the provisions of said article 1170 of the same Code. (Serralles vs. Esbri, 200 U. S., 103;
City of San Juan vs. St. John's Gas Co., 195 U. S., 510.)

Contracts are made for things, not names or sounds, and the obligation of the contract arises from its terms
and the means which the law affords for its enforcement. Under the Civil Code the contract constitutes the law
of the parties unless it violates some provision of law or public policy. The parties themselves make the law by
which they shall be governed, and it is the business of the courts to see that the parties to a legal contract
comply with its terms. A law which changes the terms of a legal contract between parties, either in the time or
mode of performance, or imposes new conditions, or dispenses with those expressed, or authorizes for its
satisfaction something different from that provided in its terms, is law which impairs the obligation of a
contract and is therefore null and void. An interference with the terms of a legal contract by legislation is
unwarranted and illegal. A contract is not fulfilled by the delivery of one thing which is different from the thing
the contract provides for. Words in contracts are to be given the meaning which they were understood to have
by the parties at the time of the making of the contract. There cannot exist in this jurisdiction one law for
debtors and another law for creditors. The genius, the nature, and the spirit of our Government amount to a
prohibition of such acts of legislation, and the general principles of law and reason forbid them.

The Legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; it may declare new crimes and establish rules of
conduct for all its citizens in future cases; it may command what is right and forbid what is wrong, but it cannot
change innocence into guilt and punish innocence as a crime, or violate the rights of an antecedent lawful
private contract or the right of private property. (Calder vs. Bul, 3 Dallas, 388.)

The fundamental maxims of a free government seem to require that the rights of personal liberty and private
property should be held sacred, and that includes contractual rights. (Wilkinson vs. Leland, 2 Peters, 657.)

| Page 8 of 9
It would be ruinous to the commercial interests of the Philippine Islands to declare that the payment of debts
of money could be made in other specie than that stipulated in the contract.

For all of the foregoing facts and the law, we are fully persuaded that the remedy prayed for should be, and is
hereby, granted. And it is hereby ordered and decreed that the writ of mandamus be issued to the defendant
herein, commanding him to countersign, or cause to be countersigned the original of the warrant set forth in
paragraph 9 of the complaint, and to deliver the same to the plaintiff so that he may present it to the Treasurer
of the Philippine Islands and receive payment of said sum of P73.33 due him as averred in the complaint; and
without any finding as to costs. So ordered.

Araullo, C.J., Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor Ostrand, Johns and Romualdez, JJ., concur.

| Page 9 of 9