Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS:
Plaintiff sought the aid of the judiciary to obtain the benefits to which he
believed he was entitled under the Veterans Bill of Rights.
He filed his claim for disability pension on March 4, 1995 but was erroneously
disapproved on June 21, 1955 due to his dishonorable discharge from the
army.
The Board of Administrators of Philippine Veterans Administration (PVA)
finally approved his claim on September 2, 1964, entitling him with a pension
of P30 a month, to take effect on October 5 of that year.
Believing that his pension should have taken effect back in 1955 when his
claim was disapproved, and that he is entitled to a higher pension of P50
(RA No. 1362 amending Section 9 of RA No. 65) as a permanently
incapacitated person, which was increased to P100 a month when RP
1362 was amended by RA No. 1920 on June 22, 1957, Begosa filed a
case against PVA in the Court of First Instance.
The Court of First Instance ruled in favor plaintiff. On the other hand,
defendants claim that the plaintiff has not exhausted all
administrative remedies before resorting to court action and that the
plaintiffs claim is in reality a suit against t h e G o v e r n m e n t w h i c h
cannot be entertained by this Court for lack of jurisdiction
because the Government has not given its consent.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not the Supreme Court would entertain the suit against Philippine
Veterans Administration or if the doctrine of non-suability may appropriately
be invoked.
HELD/RULING:
The decision of the then Judge Edilberto Soriano of the Court of First Instance
of Manila promulgated on January 22, 1966, is affirmed.
RATIONALE:
Where a litigation may have adverse consequences on the public treasury,
whether in the disbursements of funds or loss of property, the public official
proceeded against not being liable in his personal capacity, then the
doctrine of non-suitability may appropriately be invoked.
However, it has no application where the suit against such a functionary had
to b e i n s t i t u t e d b e c a u s e o f h i s f a i l u re t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e d u t y
i m p o s e d b y statue appropriating public funds for the benefit of plaintiff.
Also, where there is a stipulation of facts, the question before the lower
court being s o l e l y o n e o f l a w a n d o n t h e f a c e o f t h e d e c i s i o n ,
t h e a c t u a t i o n o f a p p e l l a n t s b e i n g patently illegal, the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies certainly does not come into play.
FACTS:
Petitioner Municipality of Makati expropriated a portion of land owned by
private respondents, Admiral Finance Creditors Consortium, Inc. in 1986, In
lieu of an expropriation proceeding filed in court, petitioner Municipality of
Makati opened a bank account with the PNB Buendia Branch under
petitioner's name containing the sum of P417,510.00, pursuant to the
provisions of Pres. Decree No. 42. RTC Makati determined the cost of the said
land to be P5,291,666.00 minus the advanced payment of P338,160.00. It
issued the corresponding writ of execution accompanied with a writ of
garnishment of funds of the petitioner which was deposited in PNB. After this
decision became final and executory, a writ of execution was issued and a
Notice of Garnishment was served by respondent sheriff upon the manager
of the PNB Buendia Branch. However, respondent sheriff was informed that a
"hold code" was placed on the account of petitioner. Private respondent then
filed a motion praying for the court to order the bank to deliver to the sheriff
the unpaid balance, while petitioner also filed a motion to lift the
garnishment.
While these motions are pending, however, a Manifestation was filed,
informing the court that private respondent was no longer the owner of the
subject property and that ownership to this has been transferred to