Lamb vs. Phipps, G.R. No.

7806, July 12, 1912

Facts: Lamb was the superintendent of the Iwahig Penal Colony until he resigned on Dec. 31, 1911 due
to ill health. Before that he was assigned as provincial treasurer for Marinduque, Mindoro and Laguna. He
requested the Auditor General, Phipps, for his clearance certificate (showing that Lamb has accounted for
all property and funds under his custody) in order that Lamb may be allowed to leave the Philippines
without incurring criminal liability.
Phipps, although the records of the Auditor General show that Lamb indeed has settled his accounts,
refuses to issue the certificate because a certain Fernandez may bring a civil suit against the government.
However the records also show that Fernandez signed the receipt acknowledging payment from the
government.
The petition for mandamus, asking the SC to compel Phipps to issue the certificate was demurred to by
the auditor because it is a suit against the government and the petition states no cause of action.
The SC initially asked Lamb to amend his petition but the latter did not do so hence the SC decided the
case upon the facts Lamb intended to make.
Issue: Whether or not mandamus may issue to compel the auditor general to issue the certificate of
clearance of Lamb.
Held: No, the certificate of clearance is needed only for bonded government employees and there is no
averment that Lamb is a bonded employee other than having custody of government property and funds,
however, the SC assumed that Lamb was a bonded officer.
We cannot believe that the legislature intended to limit the jurisdiction of this court in mandamus to the
cases where there was no other adequate and speedy remedy in the ordinary courts of law. It is our duty,
therefore, to give the statute a sensible construction; such as will effectuate the legislative intention and, if
possible, avoid an injustice or an absurd conclusion. Clerical errors or misprints, which, if uncorrected,
would render the statute unmeaning or nonsensical or would defeat or impair its intended operation, will
not vitiate the act; they will be corrected by the court and the statute read as amended, provided the true
meaning is obvious, and the real meaning of the legislature is apparent of the face of the whole
enactment.
It is confidently contended that the Auditor is not obliged under the law to accept a mere paper
accounting as final and conclusive as to the real responsibility of Government employees and to issue a
clearance upon that alone. He may, it is true, if he is satisfied; but certainly, he may, if he so desires and if
he has any doubt about the correctness of such accounts, make an actual examination of the funds and
property represented by such paper accounts or balances.