Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaFIRST DIVISIONG.R. No. L-35919 September 11, 1980REPUBLIC O T!E P!ILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.T!E PRESI"ING #U"GE, BR$NC! %&, COURT O IRST INST$NCE O RI'$L ()* #OSE SISON,respondents. "E C$STRO, J.:In this special civil action of certiorari and mandamus ith preli!inar" in#unction, the herein petitioner see$s to nullif" and set aside the orders of the respondent %ud&e dated %une '(, %ul" ) and %ul" '',)*+', all issued in ,ivil ,ase No. -.+/M, entitled 0%ose Sison, plainti1 vs. Rice and ,orn 2d!inistration, defendant.0So!eti!e on 2pril )), )*+3, respondent Sison 4led a co!plaint a&ainst the Rice and ,orn 2d!inistration 5R,2 for short6 for a su! of !one" ith the ,ourt of First Instance of Ri7al, presided b" the respondent %ud&e. R,2 4led a !otion to dis!iss the said co!plaint on the &round of non/suabilit" of the R,2 as a !ere &overn!ental a&enc" of the Republic of the Philippines. Then, on Ma" 8, )*+3, respondent Sison 4led a !otion to a!end the co!plaint for the purpose of shoin& his actionable interest as assi&nee of the purchase price of unpaid deliveries of corn &rains to the R,2. 2&ain, a !otion to dis!iss the a!ended co!plaint based upon si!ilar &rounds as 4led b" the R,2 on %une ), )*+3, hich the respondent %ud&e denied in an order dated %une .3, )*+3. 9hereupon, the R,2 4led its anser on Septe!ber '', )*+3.2fter trial, a decision as rendered b" the respondent %ud&e on Ma" )3, )*+' in favor of respondent Sison and a&ainst the R,2 orderin& the latter to pa" the corn &rains it purchased fro! respondent Sison in the a!ount of One Million Si: ;undred Tent"/s !otion to dis!iss the appeal. The respondent %ud&e issued an order dated %une '(, )*+' 1 approvin& the record on appeal, den"in&, hoever, R,2>s e:e!ption fro! the pa"!ent of le&al fees as ell as the postin& of the appealbond on the &round that R,2 is a !ere instru!entalit" of the Republic of the Philippines. ;ence, on %ul" ), )*+', the respondent %ud&e issued an order + &ivin& the R,2 4ve 586 da"s ithin hich to post an appeal bond. On %ul" )), )*+', the herein petitioner representin& the R,2 4led a !otion for reconsideration of the orders dated %une '(, and %ul" ), )*+'alle&in& that the R,2 is e:e!pt fro! postin& an appeal bond. Private Respondent 4led a second !otion to dis!iss the appeal on the &round of petitioner>s refusal to 4le the necessar" appeal bond. The respondent %ud&e issued an order 3 dated %ul" '', )*+' holdin& that the R,2, bein& a !ere instru!entalit" of the Bovern!ent of the Philippines, is not e:e!pt fro! the pa"!ent of le&al fees as ell as the postin& of an appeal bond, and dis!issin& the R,2>s appeal for its failure to 4le the re@uired appeal bond.On 2u&ust '', )*+', respondent 4led a !otion for a rit of e:ecution and approval of the bill of costs hich as opposedb" the petitioner on Septe!ber ), )*+'. The respondent %ud&e issued an order dated Septe!ber '=, )*+' for the issuance of a rit of e:ecution a&ainst the &oods and chattels of the R,2. On October .3, )*+', petitioners 4led an ur&ent !otion to @uash the rit of e:ecution hich is still unresolved and pendin& up to no.9here upon, the petitioner 4led the instant petition for certiorari and !anda!us ith preli!inar" in#unction to set aside the respondent %ud&e>s orders dated %une '(, %ul" ) and %ul" '',)*+'.The sole issue i!plicit in this petition is hether or not the R,2 is e:e!pt fro! pa"in& the le&al fees and fro! postin& an appeal bond.9e 4nd !erit in the petition.To be&in ith, 9e have to deter!ine hether the R,2 is a &overn!ental a&enc" of the Republic of the Philippines ithouta separate, distinct and independent le&al personalit" fro! the latter. 9e !aintain the aAr!ative. The le&al character of the R,2 as a &overn!ental a&enc" had alread" been passed upon in the case of Ramos vs. Court of Industrial Relations , herein this ,ourt heldC,on&ress, b" said Republic 2ct .-8' approved on %une )-, )*(', created R,2, in pursuance of its declared polic", vi7CS