MOYA VS DEL FIERRO 69 PHIL 199 (1939)

Facts:
I n t h i s p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w b y c e r t i o r a r i o f t h e judgment of
t h e C A d e c l a r i n g d e l F i e r r o a s t h e candidate-elect mayor of Paracale, Camarines
Norte with a majority vote over Moya. He contended that the CA committed errors in
admitting and counting in favor of del Fierro several ballots.
Issue:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in declaring de Fierro as elected mayor of
Paracale, Camarines Norte.
Held:
The SC dismissed the petition because in result even if the ballots contested are counted
in favor of Moya, del Fierro still wins by one vote. The SC avers that in republicanism, the
citizens have the voice in the government and whenever called upon to act in justifiable
cases to give it efficacy and not to stifle. This is the fundamental reason for the rule that
ballots should be read and appreciated if not with utmost, with reasonable liberality.
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, represented by the Treasurer of
the Philippine Islands, plaintiff-appellee,
vs
EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORRAS DE MANILA, defendant-appellant
Facts:
This case is a case of Parens Patriae. On June 3, 1863 a devastating earthquake occurred
in the Philippines. The Spanish Dominions then provided $400,000.00 as aid for the victims and
it was receivedby the Philippine Treasury. Out of the aid, $80,000.00 was left untouched; it was
then invested in the Monte de Piedad Bank which in turn invested the amount in jewelries. But
when the Philippine government later tried to withdraw the said amount, the bank cannot provide
for the amount. The bank argued that the Philippine government is not an affected party hence
has no right to institute a complaint. Bank argues that the government was not the intended
beneficiary of the said amount.
Issue:
Whether or not the Philippine government is competent to file a complaint against the
respondent bank?
Held:
The Philippine government is competent to institute action against Monte de Piedad, this
is in accordance with the doctrine of Parens Patriae. The government being the protector of the
rights 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 has the right to take back the money intended for the people.