248.

POLICARPIO VS PHIL VETERANS

Facts: The appellee was the widow of a member of the Armed Forces killed in
action in 1942; upon her application duly approved oard! The pension was
stopped in "uly 194# because the widow received a similar pension from $!%!
&eterans Administration! 'owever( the latter certi)ed to the appellant that the
widow had ceased receivin* her pension from the $!%! &eterans Administration
since 19+1( whereupon( in February 11( 19+,( petitioner -olicarpio applied to
appellant for the resumption of her former pension! .n February 2#( 19+,( the
%ecretary of the -hilippine &eterans oard issued a memorandum that petitioner/s
pension was resumed e0ective "anuary ,1( 19+1; and in view thereof the auditor
caused treasury warrants to be prepared in favor of the widow! 2elivery of the
warrants was( however( subse3uently stopped( for the reason that the appellant
oard 4had not yet *ranted the restoration of the petitioner/s pension4!
.n the basis of such facts( and in view of the refusal of the board o5cers to
release the warrants( petitioner -olicarpio applied to the 6ourt of First 7nstance for
a writ of mandamus to compel their release! 7n its answer the board speci)cally
pleaded that the preparation of the warrants was ordered by mistake( because
-olicarpio/s petition had not been as yet acted upon by the oard!
%ubmitted on the facts alle*ed( by a*reement of the parties the court issues the
writ!
7ssue: w8n the issuance of the writ is proper
'eld4 The decision is untenable! 7t bein* an established fact that the resumption
of the pension had not yet been approved by the &eterans oard( the
memorandum of the %ecretary and the preparation of the warrants were obviously
unauthori9ed( and the takin* of such action proves nothin* but that the error or
lack of authority was not holdin* of the warrants!
7t was improper to compel delivery of the warrants( because the oard mi*ht( in
the e:ercise of its discretion( refuse to restore petitioner/s pension; and even if its
refusal should be wron*ful or erroneous( the court could not properly intervene
until the appellee;petitioner should have e:hausted her administrative remedies!
<2e la -a9 vs! Alcara9( supra( p! 1,1; =i*uel vs! &da! de >eyes( 9, -hil!( +42!?
Therefore( the court below should have limited itself to orderin* the oard to take
action upon -olicarpio/s petition that her pension payments be resumed!
! ! ! And it is a well;settled rule that mandamus does not lie to review or
control the action or decision of a pension board or other board or o5cer havin*
authority over pension matters( where the action or decision is one restin* in the
discretion of such board or o5cer( or where it involves the construction of the law
and the application of the facts thereto! ! ! ! @here a pension board or o5cer
simply refuses to take any action whatever( the court will issue a mandamus to
compel it or him to ever( the court will issue a mandamus to compel it or him to
take some action( but will not attempt to prescribe the action to be taken and
thereby control the discretion or Aud*ment of the board or o5cer! ! ! ! <41 Am! "ur!
pp! 99,( 994?!
249. Tan vs Veterans Backpay C!!"ss"n
Facts: =aria Batividad vda! de Tan is the widow of Tan 6hiat ee alias Cian Cay
who died in the service April 4( 194+ in the battle at 7po 2am( >i9al -rovince(
-hilippines! 'e was duly reco*ni9ed as a *uerrilla veteran and certi)ed by the
Armed Forces of the -hilippines!
Batividad )led an application for back pay under the provisions >epublic Act Bo!
#9D! Althou*h initially the &6 allowed aliens to recover backpay( it revoked its
previous stands and ruled that aliens are not entitled to back pay!
7ssues:
<1? @hether or not a petition for mandamus is proper to correct the acts of the
commission!
<2? @hether or not it is necessary in the case at bar that Batividad should have
e:hausted all administrative remedies( i!e! before the president!
'eld:
<1? Ees! The discretion of the &eterans ackpay 6ommission is limited to the facts
of the case; that is( in evaluatin* the evidence whether or not claimant is a
member of a *uerrilla force duly reco*ni9ed by the $nited %tates Army! 7t has no
power to adAudicate or determine ri*hts after such facts are established! 'avin*
been satis)ed that the deceased was an o5cer or a *uerrilla out)t duly
reco*ni9ed by the $nited %tates Army and formin* part of the -hilippine Army( it
becomes the ministerial duty of the 6ommission to *ive due course to his widow/s
application! For this reason( mandamus lies a*ainst the 6ommission!
<2? Bo! The respondent 6ommission is in estoppel to invoke the rule on the
e:haustion of administrative remedies( considerin* that in its resolution( it
declared that the opinions of the %ecretary of "ustice were 4advisory in nature(
which may either be accepted or i*nored by the o5ce seekin* the opinion( and
any a**rieved party has the court for recourse4( thereby leadin* the petitioner to
conclude that only a )nal Audicial rulin* in her favor would be accepted by the
6ommission!
2#$. PROVINCE O% PAN&ASINAN VS REPARATIONS CO''ISSION
Facts: the petitioner -rovince of -an*asinan )led with the respondent >eparations
6ommission an application for reparation *oods worth $% F1(+11(111!11( to be
used for 4non;revenue proAects4!
7n revised schedule( the road buildin* e3uipment applied for by the petitioner was
not recommended as a( 4non;revenue producin* proAect!4
The -resident approved the tentative ninth reparations year schedule as revised
and recommended by the Bational Gconomic 6ouncil( and( thereafter( returned
the same to the >eparations 6ommission for implementation!
The reparations *oods and e3uipment arrived at the -ort of =anila in .ctober(
19HH( and were released to the petitioner!
>eparations Adviser( forwarded to the 6hairman of the >eparations 6ommission(
for his si*nature( copies of the 46ontract of Transfer of >eparations Ioods4 in favor
of the petitioner! Tile contract( however( was not acted upon despite
representations made in behalf of the petitioner! 7nstead( on Bovember 2H( 19HH(
the respondent >eparations 6ommission re3uired the petitioner to place the
reparations *oods in the custody of the 'i*hway 2istrict Gn*ineer until the
petitioner is *iven clearance by the %ecretary of Finance( Auditor Ieneral( ud*et
6ommissioner( and the .5ce of the -resident! >epresentations made in behalf of
the petitioner with the respondent >eparations 6ommission yielded no favorable
results as the respondent 6ommission re3uired pre;payment of the procurement
costs before return of the reparations *oods is made( the reparations *oods in
3uestion not havin* been classi)ed as intended for non;revenue producin*
proAects! Thereafter( the respondent >eparations 6ommission ordered the deletion
and removal from the reparations *oods of all inscriptions indicatin* the
proprietary ri*ht of petitioner over said *oods!
The -rovincial Iovernor of -an*asinan( )le petition for mandamus!
The 6ourt *ave due course to the petition and issued a temporary restrainin*(
orderin* the respondents to cease and desist from continuin* acts of interference(
use( control( and disposition of the roadbuildin* e3uipment machineries and
vehicles obtained by the petitioner throu*h the >eparations 6ommission!
The respondents seek the dismissal of the petition upon the *rounds that
mandamus is not the proper remedy to enforce contractual ri*hts!
7ssue: w8n mandamus is the proper remedy!
'eld: no! =andamus is employed to compel the performance( when refused( of a
ministerial duty( this bein* its chief use! ut( mandamus does not lie to re3uire
anyone to ful)ll contractual obli*ations or to compel a course of conduct!1D
The case under consideration( under the alle*ations of the petition( constitute an
attempt to settle contractual ri*hts and obli*ations( e:press or implied( between
the petitioner and the respondent >eparations 6ommission and to re*ulate a
course of conduct on the part of the respondent 6ommission! Accordin*ly( a
mandamus is not the proper remedy!
7t has also been held 1# that it is essential to the issuance of the writ of
mandamus that the plainti0 should have a clear le*al ri*ht to the thin* demanded
and it must be the imperative duty of the defendant to -erform the act re3uired! 7t
never issues in doubtful cases! @hile it may not be necessary that the duty be
absolutely e:press( it is necessary that it should be clear! The writ will not issue to
compel an o5cial to do anythin* which it is not his duty to do or which it is his
duty not to do( or *ive to the applicant anythin* to which he is not entitled by law!
The writ neither confers powers nor imposes duties! 7t is simply a command to
e:ercise a power already possessed and to perform a duty already imposed!
A readin* of the application in this proceedin* discloses that there is an absence
of ade3uate evidence that it is the duty of the respondent >eparations
6ommission to perform the act whose performance is prayed for in the petition!
Thus( the basis of petitioner/s complaint is that the reparations *oods in 3uestion
were awarded to the province to be used( in non;revenue producin* proAects and(
hence( the petitioner is not liable to pay the procurement costs pursuant to %ec!
12 of >epublic Act Bo! 1D#9; wherefore( it is the duty of the respondent
6ommission to e:ecute in petitioner/s favor the formal documents of transfer!
2#(. 'ERALCO SEC)RITIES CORP VS SAVELLANO
Facts: 7n 19HD( "uan =ania*o informed the 6ommissioner of 7nternal >evenue
<67>? that =G>AC6. %ecurities 6orporation did not pay the proper ta:es from 19H2
to 19HH! The 67> conducted an investi*ation and it found out that =G>AC6. did
actually pay the proper amount of ta: due within said period! The 67> then
informed =ania*o of its decision and also informed him that since no de)ciency
ta: was collected( =ania*o is not entitled to the informerJs reward then o0ered to
individuals who report ta: evaders!
=ania*o then )led a petition for mandamus a*ainst the 67>! After hearin*( "ud*e
&ictorino %avellano *ranted =ania*oJs petition and ordered the 67> to collect the
de)ciency ta:es and further ordered the 67> to pay =ania*oJs informerJs reward!
7ssue: w8n mandamus is the proper remedy
'eld: 7t is furthermore a well;reco*ni9ed rule that mandamus only lies to enforce
the performance of a ministerial act or duty + and not to control the performance
of a discretionary power! H -urely administrative and discretionary functions may
not be interfered with by the courts! D 2iscretion( as thus intended( means the
power or ri*ht conferred upon the o5ce by law of actin* o5cially under certain
circumstances accordin* to the dictates of his own Aud*ment and conscience and
not controlled by the Aud*ment or conscience of others! # mandamus may not be
resorted to so as to interfere with the manner in which the discretion shall be
e:ercised or to inKuence or coerce a particular determination!
=oreover( since the o5ce of the 6ommissioner of 7nternal >evenue is char*ed
with the administration of revenue laws( which is the primary responsibility of the
e:ecutive branch of the *overnment( mandamus may not he a*ainst the
6ommissioner to compel him to impose a ta: assessment not found by him to be
due or proper for that would be tantamount to a usurpation of e:ecutive functions!
As we held in the case of 6ommissioner of 7mmi*ration vs! Arca 1, anent this
principle( Lthe administration of immi*ration laws is the primary responsibility of
the e:ecutive branch of the *overnment! G:tensions of stay of aliens are
discretionary on the part of immi*ration authorities( and neither a petition for
mandamus nor one for certiorari can compel the 6ommissioner of 7mmi*ration to
e:tend the stay of an alien whose period to stay has e:pired!
2#2. CR)* VS CA
Facts: -etitioner &ictorina A! 6ru9 has been a Iuidance and 6ounsellin*
6oordinator 777 of &alen9uela =emorial 'i*h %chool <&='%? since 19D#! %uch
position had a rank of secondary head teacher with annual basic salary of
-2H(,##!11 paid by the local *overnment!
.n "uly 1( 19#D( G:ecutive .rder Bo! 1#9 took e0ect placin* all secondary school
teachers under the administrative supervision and control of the 2epartment of
Gducation( 6ulture and %ports <2G6%? and makin* their salaries and cost of livin*
allowance payable by the national *overnment!
A**rieved by her demotion( petitioner appealed to the 6ivil %ervice 6ommission
=erit %ystems -rotection oard <6%6;=%-?prayin* for an up*radin* of her
position to >;H, with a monthly salary of -1(#12!11!
The appeal was referred to the 2epartment of ud*et and =ana*ement <2=? for
comment on "anuary 2,( 19#9!
7n a letter dated "une +( 19#9( 2= informed =%- that pursuant to G!.! 1#9(
petitionerJs item was classi)ed as Iuidance 6ounsellor( e0ective "uly 1( 19#D! The
nationali9ed position reduced petitionerJs salary from -2H(,##!11 per annum or
-2(199!11 a month to -1#(H,H!11 per annum or -1(++,!11 a month!
.n "une 19( 1991( =%- rendered a 2ecision in favor of 6ru9( that =s! &ictorina A!
6ru9 shall be paid her salary under the recent enactment <>!A! HD+#? which
increased the salary per month of teacher as applied by the 2G6% to nationali9ed
teachers!
.n "uly 11( 1991( the 2G6%;B6> re3uested from the 2= the issuance of a
supplemental -osition Allocation Cist <-AC? of &='% to reKect the reclassi)ed
position of petitioner from Iuidance 6ounsellor 777( %I;12 to Iuidance %pecialist 77(
%I;1H!
.n =ay 11( 1991( the 2=( throu*h $ndersecretary %alvador =! Gnri3ue9( "r!
denied the re3uest on the *round that the =%- has no Aurisdiction to reclassify
petitionerJs position from Iuidance 6ounselor 777( %I;12 to Iuidance %ervices
%pecialist 77( %I;1H(
.n "uly ,( 1991( petitioner )led a =otion for G:ecution of the =%- 2ecision dated
"une 19( 1991 and .rder dated Au*ust ,1( 1991!
.n =arch 1#( 1992( =%- issued an order of e:ecution directin* the 2G6% and the
2= to implement its 2ecision immediately upon notice <Anne: L2M( -etition for
=andamus?!
7n "une 1992( petitioner went on sick leave for a multiple myomma operation and
reported back to work in "une 199,! -etitioner found that the &='% payroll reKects
her positon NsicO as Iuidance 6ounselor 777 %I;12 in violation of the =%- rulin*s!
.n "uly 2#( 199,( petitioner )led with the 6ourt of Appeals a petition for
mandamus prayin* that respondents be directed to enforce and comply with the
2ecision of the =%- dated "une 19( 1991 and .rders dated Au*ust ,1( 1991 and
=arch 1#( 1992!
6A denied the petition!
7ssue: @'GT'G> .> B.T T'G >G%-.B2GBT 6.$>T 6.==7TTG2 %G>7.$% G>>.>
7B >GF$%7BI T. 7%%$G A @>7T .F =AB2A=$% .B T'G I>.$B2 T'AT 7T 7% T'G
2G-A>T=GBT .F $2IGT AB2 =ABAIG=GBT @'76' 'A% "$>7%276T7.B .&G>
T'G %$"G6T =ATTG> .F T'G 6A%G!
'eld: %G>&76G 6.=;=7%%7.B; =G>7T %E%TG= ->.=.T7.B .A>2; "$>7%276T7.B
.&G> 6.=-CA7BT F.> 2G=.T7.B >GFG>% T. -G>%.BBGC A6T7.B AB2 B.T .BG
6A$%G2 E .-G>AT7.B .F CA@! ; 7n upholdin* its Aurisdiction over the petitionerJs
claim( the =%-( in its order of 1# =arch 1992( relied on para*raph <2? <b?( %ection
1H( 6hapter 777( %ubtitle A( Title 7( ook & of G!.! Bo! 292( otherwise known as the
Administrative 6ode of 19#D! @e disa*ree with the =%- that subpara*raph <b? of
para*raph <2? of the section confers upon it the authority to decide the
petitionerJs complaint in that the complaint involves a violation of the merit
system! The Kaw in the =%-Js view is but a result of its misconception that the
petitionerJs basic complaint dated 9 Bovember 19#D e:clusively involved a
demotion! 7ndeed( while it was carefully captioned 6.=-CA7BT F.> 2G=.T7.B(
the LdemotionM referred to was not the Lpersonnel actionM nor the Lviolation of the
merit systemM contemplated in the above;3uoted provision of law! The latter
refers to personnel action or violations of the merit system done by or as a
conse3uence of an act or omission on the part of the appointin* authority!
-ersonnel action denotes the movement of personnel in the civil service and
includes appointment throu*h certi)cation( promotion( transfer( reinstatement( re;
employment( detail( reassi*nment( demotion( and separation! All personnel
actions shall be in accordance with such rules( standards( and re*ulations as may
be promul*ated by the 6%6! 7n the case at bench( the appointin* authority had
absolutely nothin* to do with what the petitioner perceived to be a demotion in
her salary ; such was done by operation of law! 7n thus reclassifyin* the position of
the petitioner to Iuidance %ervices %pecialist 77( %I;1H( the =%- clearly acted
without Aurisdiction!
=AB2A=$%; =$%T G F7CG2 @7T'7B >GA%.BACG T7=G; @7T'7B T'>GG =.BT'%
F>.= 6.==7%%7.B .F 6.=-CA7BG2 A6T( >GA%.BACG T7=G; F7C7BI .F -GT7T7.B
AFTG> =.>G T'AB T@. EGA>% 7B 6A%G AT A>! ; A*ainst the 11 =ay 1991
refusal of the 2=( handed down ten months before the order of e:ecution was
issued( the petitioner did not even )le a motion for reconsideration nor take any
further action to ventilate her *rievance with an appropriate court or
instrumentality of the Iovernment! 'er petition for mandamus )led only on 2#
"une 199,( or after more than two years( was( in reality( the )rst resort to Audicial
action a*ainst such refusal! Althou*h >ule H+ does not specify any period for the
)lin* of a petition for certiorari and mandamus( it must( nevertheless( be )led
within a reasonable time! 7n certiorari cases( the de)nitive rule now is that such
reasonable time is within three months from the commission of the complained
act! The same rule should apply to mandamus cases! The unreasonable delay in
the )lin* of the petitionerJs mandamus suit unerrin*ly ne*ates any claim that the
application for the said e:traordinary remedy was the most e:peditious and
speedy available to the petitioner!