Garcia v Chief of Staff [16 SCRA 120]

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plaintiff, the same Adjutant General’s Office denied the claim, alleging that the Commonwealth Act 400 had already been repealed by RA 610 which took effect January 1, 1950.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.