You are on page 1of 2

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-20213

January 31, 1966

MARIANO E. GARCIA, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
THE CHIEF OF STAFF and THE ADJUTANT GENERAL, ARMED FORCES OF
THE PHILIPPINES and/or THE CHAIRMAN, PHILIPPINE VETERANS BOARD
and/or THE AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINES, defendantsappellees.
Tiangco and Millosa for the plaintiff-appellant.
Office of the Solicitor General for the defendants-appellees.
REGALA, J.:
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 Court of First Instance of Pangasinan an action to collect a sum of
money against the Chief of Staff and the Adjutant General of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines, the Chairman of the Philippine Veterans Board and /or the
Auditor General. The complaint alleged: that sometime in July, 1948, the plaintiff
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 the latter's request; that on May
2, 1957, he received a letter from the said Adjutant General's Office disallowing
his claim for disability benefits; that on November 24, 1958, after further
demands of the plaintiff, the Adjutant General's Office denied the said claim,
alleging that Commonwealth Act 400 had already been repealed by Republic Act
610 which took effect on January 1, 1950; that by reason of the injuries suffered
by plaintiff he was deprived of his sight or vision rendering him permanently
disabled; and that by reason of the unjustified refusal by defendants of plaintiff's
claim, the latter was deprived of his disability pension from July, 1948 totaling no
less than P4,000 at the rate of P20 a month 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 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

J. Bautista Angelo.. concur.. 1962. C. . Motion for reconsideration of the said order having been denied. . 2. . the order dismissing the complaint is hereby affirmed. Reyes J. the Auditor General shall act and decide the same within sixty days. April 28. within thirty days from receipt of the decision. J. after their presentation. Inc. we have to uphold the order of dismissal..B.ñët Acting on the said motion. Makalintal. other than those of accountable officers. the court. . in line with the principle that the State cannot be sued without its consent. on March 2. Republic. rendered an order dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action has prescribed. exclusive of Sundays and holidays. took no part. No. In all cases involving the settlement of accounts or claims.R. Concepcion. Barrera. (c) To the Supreme Court of the Philippines. JJ. G. The party aggrieved by the final decision of the Auditor General in the settlement of an account or claim may.. vs.. This Court has already held (New Manila Lumber Co. Commonwealth Act 327 provides: SECTION 1. Without need of discussing the various questions raised. J. Bengzon.P. L-14248. Bengzon. In view therefor. and Zaldivar. Dizon. not necessarily on the same ground as found by the lower court. without pronouncement as to costs. but for the simple reason that the Court of First Instance has no jurisdiction over the subject matter. take an appeal in writing: xxx xxx x x x. it being a money claim against the government. 1960) that a claim for the recovery of money against the government should be filed with the Auditor General. and that the cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations. the plaintiff has interposed this appeal. 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 officers could grant relief is squarely applicable to the present case. SEC. if the appellant is a private person or entity.L.1äwphï1.complaint states no cause of action.