Rez Kristofferjun Z.

Catedral
Section JD 1B
Constitutional Law 1

GAUDENCIO A. BEGOSA vs. BOARD OF ADMINISTRATORS, PHILIPPINE VETERANS

AFFAIRS OFFICE
G.R. No. L-25916. April 30, 1970

FACTS:

Plaintiff sought the aid of the judiciary to obtain the benefits to which he believed hewas entitled
under the Veterans’ Bill of Rights. He filed his claim for disability pension on March 4, 1955 but
was erroneously disapproved on June 21, 1955 due to his dishonorable discharge from the army.
The Board of Administrators of 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. CFI ruled in favor plaintiff. Defendants claim that the plaintiff has not exhausted
all administrative remedies before resorting to court action and that the plaintiff’s claim is in
reality a suit against the Government which cannot be entertained by this Court for lack of
jurisdiction because the Government has not given its consent.

ISSUE:

Can the Supreme Court entertain the suit against PVA?

HELD:

Where 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-suability may appropriately be invoked.
However, it has no application where the suit against such a functionary had to be instituted
because of his failure to comply with the duty imposed by statute appropriating public funds for
the benefit of plaintiff. Also, where there is a stipulation of facts, the question before the lower
court being solely one of law and on the face of the decision, the actuation of appellants being
patently illegal, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies certainly does not come
into play.