Statement. The petitioner challenges the  respondent judge's order of May  14, 1955, requiring him to authorize the refund  in legal currency of  "script"  or  "guerrilla" money deposited as bail bond in 1945.   At his  request, we issued a preliminary injunction temporarily  to restrain the enforcement of said directive.

Facts. In  Criminal Case No. 416 of  the court of  first instance of Negros Occidental, in  August, 1945, Gorgonio Java as bondsman  for the accused Fe Villavecer, deposited with the Municipal Treasurer of Gadiz, same province, the sum of five hundred pesos in guerrilla or "script" money. Said Treasurer's receipt expressly noted: "Dep. in script". On January 14, 1945,  upon motion of the fiscal, the court dismissed the case and directed  the  cancellation of the bond.

On May 3, 1955,  upon motion of Gorgonio Java, filed the previous month, the respondent judge entered an order,  in said criminal case, requiring the provincial auditor, (herein petitioner) to sign the voucher for the release of the cash bond deposit.   The said  auditor signed the corresponding voucher, remarking however that payment shall be made in "script money".  The bondsman again asked the court for a directive for the return in legal tender of the amount he had deposited.  After some court skirmishes, and after listening to the  auditor's  counsel, the respondent  judge finally ruled on May 14,  1955 that the cash bond must be returned in  legal  tender,  and  commanded  said  official accordingly to make the  corresponding release within five days.  An urgent motion to reconsider was promptly denied, Hence this petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction which was given due course.

Discussion. It is at once apparent that in the Criminal Case No. 416  the  provincial auditor was  not a party. Wherefore, the orders of the court therein do not normally bind him, unlike  the ministerial  officers  of the  court, the sheriff, clerk of court, etc.  True, the auditor was furnished copy of the motion to  release, and subsequently appeared to contest the petition.   However he  raised substantial questions, which  should not have been decided summarily on a mere motion, to wit:  reimbursement in 1955 in legal tender of guerrilla money "deposited" in 1945; validity of said money; error in the acceptance thereof; applicability and operation  of Republic Acts  386  and  22 concerning redemption and registration of guerrilla  currency; laches; no funds available.   These are matters which, with other subsidiary issues, should have been debated  in a separate suit (mandamus) against the auditor,  who,  as already observed, was not a party  to the criminal case.

Anyway, respondents might argue, the result is the same,because  these matters could be litigated, and in fact have been discussed, in the case; and thereby  a "speedy and inexpensive determination" of the  question was  obtained, in accordance with Rule 1 section 2 of the Rules of Court.

The argument may not be sustained.  For  one thing if mandamus were instituted by Gorgonio Java against the auditor to compel release of the money in legal tender, the respondent therein could set up one  good defense^[1], the explanation  he offered in his pleadings herein and in the court below: that he had consulted the Auditor General, and that the petitioner's remedy was to appeal his ruling to said higher official  of the Executive  Branch.^[2]   Such defense would have been effective in a mandamus proceeding; yet  it  received no attention in the consideration of Java's motion for reimbursement.   If respondents should demur to the institution of another action asserting it is not speedy and is expensive, and therefore obnoxious to the spirit of section 2 Rule 1, they  should remember that the purpose  of the rules of procedure is  to  promote not only the  speedy and  inexpensive determination of issues, but also  the just decision thereof;  and it is not fair to adjudge an  issue in a proceeding where the  person to be affected is not a regular party,  and,  what is worse, can not properly assert  a  defense  particularly  approved by statutes  and precedents.

Judgment. For the above reasons, the order complained of is revoked.  The injunction heretofore issued is hereby made permanent.  Costs against respondent Gorgonio Java.

Paras, C. J., Padilla, Montemayor,  Reyes,  A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L.,  and Endencia, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Besides those already mentioned.

^[2] Section 3 Rule 67; Sherman vs. Horrilleno, 57 Phil., 13; Manotoc vs. McMicking, 11 Phil., 119; Cruz Herrera vs. McMicking, 14 Phil., 641 and others.