Republic of the Philippines
G.R. No. L-20213 January 31, 1966
MARIANO E. GARCIA,
THE CHIEF OF STAFF and THE ADJUTANT GENERAL, ARMED FORCES OF THEPHILIPPINES and/or THE CHAIRMAN, PHILIPPINE VETERANS BOARD and/or THE AUDITORGENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Tiangco and Millosa for the plaintiff-appellant.Office of the Solicitor General for the defendants-appellees.
This is an appeal from an order of dismissal.It appears that on December 1, 1961, the plaintiff-appellant, Mariano E. Garcia, filed with the Courtof First Instance of Pangasinan an action to collect a sum of money against the Chief of Staff andthe Adjutant General of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Chairman of the PhilippineVeterans Board and /or the Auditor General. The complaint alleged: that sometime in July, 1948, theplaintiff suffered injuries while undergoing the 10-month military training at Camp Floridablanca,Pampanga; that sometime thereafter he filed his claim under Commonwealth Act 400 and in April,1957, he submitted some papers in support of his claim to the Adjutant General's Office upon thelatter's request; that on May 2, 1957, he received a letter from the said Adjutant General's Officedisallowing his claim for disability benefits; that on November 24, 1958, after further demands of theplaintiff, the Adjutant General's Office denied the said claim, alleging that Commonwealth Act 400had already been repealed by Republic Act 610 which took effect on January 1, 1950; that by reasonof the injuries suffered by plaintiff he was deprived of his sight or vision rendering him permanentlydisabled; and that by reason of the unjustified refusal by defendants of plaintiff's claim, the latter wasdeprived of his disability pension from July, 1948 totalling no less than P4,000 at the rate of P20 amonth and suffered thereby moral damages and attorney's fees the amount of P2,000.00.The Philippine Veterans Administration and the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces filed separatemotions to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the court has no jurisdiction over the subjectmatter of the complaint; that the plaintiff failed to exhaust all administrative remedies before comingto court; that the complaint states no cause of action; and that the cause of action is barred by thestatute of limitations.
Acting on the said motion, the court, on March 2, 1962, rendered an order dismissing the complainton the ground that the action has prescribed.Motion for reconsideration of the said order having been denied, the plaintiff has interposed thisappeal.Without need of discussing the various questions raised, We have to uphold the order of dismissal,not necessarily on the same ground as found by the lower court; but for the simple reason that the