Garcia v Chief of Staff [16 SCRA 120]

By -
Facts: The plaintiff filed with the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, an action to collect a sum of money against the above defendants. He suffered injuries while undergoing a 10-month military training at Camp Floridablanca, Pampanga. He filed a claim under Commonwealth Act 400 and in April 1957 with the Adjutant General’s Office which later disallow his claim for disability benefit. After further demands of the plaintiff, the same Adjutant General’s Office denied the claim, alleging that the Commonwealth Act 400 had already been repealed by RA 610 which took effect January 1, 1950. That by the reason of the injuries suffered by plaintiff, he was deprived of his sight or vision rendering him permanently disabled; and by the reason of unjustified refusal of defendants on the claim, plaintiff was deprived of his disability pension from July 1948 totalling no less than P4,000 at the rate of P20/mo and suffered moral damages and attorney’s fees the amount of P2,000. The Philippine Veterans Administration and the Chief of Staff of AFP file separate motions to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint; that the plaintiff failed to exhaust all administrative remedies before coming to court; that the complaint states no cause of action; and that the cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations. Acting on the said Motion, the Court of First Instance, on March 2, 1962, rendered an order dismissing the complaint on the ground that action has prescribed. Motion for reconsideration of the said order having been denied, the plaintiff has interposed this appeal.

Issue:  Whether or not the lower court is right in dismissing the complaint.

Held: The SC uphold the order of dismissal for the simple reason that the Court of First Instance has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, it being a money claim against the government.  It was already held in the case of New Manila Lumber vs. Republic in L-14248, 4/28/60, that a claim for the recovery of money against the government should be filed with the Auditor General, in line with the principle that the State can not be sued without its consent.

Commonwealth Act 327 provides:

Section 1.  In all cases involving the settlement of accounts or claims, other than those of accountable officers, the Auditor General shall act and decide the same within 60 days, exclusive of Sundays and holidays after their presentation….

Section 2.  The party aggrieved by the final decision of the Auditor General in the settlement of an account or claim, may within 30 days from receipt of decision, take an appeal in writing to (c) the Supreme Court, if the appellant is a private person or entity.


The well established rule that no recourse to court can be had until all administrative remedies had been exhausted and that actions against administrative officers should not be entertained if superior administrative officer could grant relief is applicable to this case.  The order dismissing the complaint is hereby affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

PNB vs CA & Gueco et al

By -
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK VS. COURT OF APPEALS,RITA GUECO TAPNIO,CECILIO GUECO and THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY FACTS: Mrs. Rita Gueco Tapnio was indebted to the Philippine National Bank at San Fernando,Pampanga for the total sum of P2,379.91.  Her indebtedness was a crop loan and was secured by the mortgage on her standing crap including her sugar quota allocation for the agricultural year corresponding to the said standing crop. During agricultural year 1956-1957 Mrs. Tapnio had an excess in her export sugar quota, 1000 piculs which she does not need. Mr. Jacobo Tuazon, a planter harvest less than his sugar quota. Mrs. Tapnio agreed to allow Mr. Tuazon to use her excess sugar quota for the consideration of P2,500.00.  Since the quota of Mrs. Tapnio was mortgaged to the PNB, the contract of lease that Mrs. Tapnio and Mr. Tuazon agreed into had to be approved by the bank. The branch manager required the parties to raise the consideration to P2,800.00 i...
Read more

LAGUNZAD vs.VDA. DE GONZALES & CA

By -
MANUEL LAGUNZAD, petitioner,  vs. MARIA SOTO VDA. DE GONZALES and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. G.R. No. L-32066 August 6, 1979 FACTS Petitioner Manuel Lagunzad, a newspaperman, began the production of a movie entitled "The Moises Padilla Story" portraying the life of Moises Padilla, a mayoralty candidate of the Nacionalista Party for the Municipality of Magallon, Negros Occidental and for whose murder, Governor Rafael Lacson, a member of the Liberal Party then in power and his men were tried and convicted.  The emphasis of the movie was on the public life of Moises Padilla, there were portions which dealt with his private and family life including the portrayal in some scenes, of his mother, Maria Soto, private respondent herein, and of one "Auring" as his girl friend. Padilla’s half sister, for and in behalf of her mother, Vda.de Gonzales, objected to the "exploitation" of his life and demanded in writing for certain changes, corrections ...
Read more

Co vs Court of Appeals

By -
ALBINO S. CO,  petitioner,  vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,  respondents. G.R. No. 100776 October 28, 1993 Facts:                 In connection with an agreement to salvage and refloat asunken vessel — and in payment of his share of the expenses of the salvage operations therein stipulated — petitioner Albino Co delivered to the salvaging firm on September 1, 1983 a check drawn against the Associated Citizens' Bank, postdated November 30, 1983 in the sum of P361,528.00. The check was deposited on January 3, 1984. It was dishonored two days later, the tersely-stated reason given by the bank being: "CLOSED ACCOUNT."                 A criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 2 was filed by the salvage company against Albino Co with the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. Th...
Read more