ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
December-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-2502 December 1, 1949 - PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF ILOCOS NORTE v. CEFERINO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL

    085 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. L-2836 December 6, 1949 - ENGRACIA G. DE PONCE v. ALICIA VASQUEZ SAGARIO, ET AL

    085 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-2466 December 7, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO TUAZON

    085 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. L-2580 December 7, 1949 - PABLO RICOHERMOSO v. JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL

    085 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. L-2593 December 7, 1949 - FELIX AZOTES v. MANUEL BLANCO, ET AL

    085 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. L-2652 December 7, 1949 - JULIA LORENZO, ET AL v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF NAIC, ET AL

    085 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. L-2758 December 7, 1949 - CLARO J. GIL, ET AL v. F. IMPERIAL REYES, ET AL

    085 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. L-3452 December 7, 1949 - NACIONALISTA PARTY v. FELIX ANGELO BAUTISTA

    085 Phil 101

  • G.R. No. L-3474 December 7, 1949 - NACIONALISTA PARTY v. VICENTE DE VERA

    085 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-2354 December 13, 1949 - ALFONSO ARANETA v. MARTA CUI VDA. DE SANSON

    085 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-2672 December 13, 1949 - UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS v. BUENAVENTURA OCAMPO, ET AL

    085 Phil 144

  • G.R. No. L-3521 December 13, 1949 - NACIONALISTA PARTY ET AL. v. COMELEC

    085 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. L-2722 December 15, 1949 - NICOLAS LIZARES & CO. v. BIENVENIDO TAN

    085 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. L-2802 December 23, 1949 - ROSA PASCUAL, ET AL v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN, ET AL

    085 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-2936 December 23, 1949 - TIDE WATER ASSOCIATED OIL CO. v. VICTORY EMPLOYEES, ET AL

    085 Phil 166

  • G.R. No. L-867 December 29, 1949 - ANTONIO DEL ROSARIO ET AL. v. CARLOS SANDICO ET AL.

    085 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. L-1349 December 29, 1949 - H. D. KNEEDLER v. SIMON PATERNO

    085 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. L-1773 December 29, 1949 - ALEJANDRO ANDRES, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    085 Phil 192

  • G.R. No. L-1811 December 29, 1949 - GREGORIO BALVERAN, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS

    085 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-1877 December 29, 1949 - H. P. HOSKYNS v. NAT’L. CITY BANK OF NEW YORK

    085 Phil 201

  • G.R. No. L-1965 December 29, 1949 - EDUARDO OSORIO v. MARINA OSORIO

    085 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-2020 December 29, 1949 - LA ORDEN DE PADRES BENEDICTINOS DE FILIPINAS v. PHIL. TRUST CO.

    085 Phil 217

  • G.R. No. L-2360 December 29, 1949 - GAVINO ALDAMIZ v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MINDORO, ET AL

    085 Phil 228

  • G.R. No. L-2404 December 29, 1949 - FABIAN B. S. ABELLERA v. FELICIANO GARCIA

    085 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. L-2634 December 29, 1949 - PACIFIC IMPORTING & EXPORTING CO. v. CATALINO TINIO, ET AL

    085 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-2570 December 29, 1949 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO. v. RURAL TRANSIT EMPLOYEES’ ASSO.

    085 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. L-2678 December 29, 1949 - ANTONIO C. ARAGON v. MARCOS JORGE

    085 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. L-2717 December 29, 1949 - IRINEO FACUNDO v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN ET AL.

    085 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. L-2752 December 29, 1949 - URBANO OLAVARIO ET AL. v. JUAN T. VILLANUEVA

    085 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. L-2842 December 29, 1949 - JOSE T. VALMONTE, ET AL v. MARIANO NABLE, ET AL

    085 Phil 256

  • G.R. No. L-2850 December 29, 1949 - ONG KIM PAN, ET AL v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO, ET AL

    085 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. L-2942 December 29, 1949 - SILVESTRA COQUIA, ET AL v. RODOLFO BALTAZAR, ET AL

    085 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-3039 December 29, 1949 - VICTORIO REYNOSO, ET AL v. VICENTE SANTIAGO, ET AL

    085 Phil 268

  • G.R. No. L-3261 December 29, 1949 - HECTOR G. PALILEO v. FRED RUIZ CASTRO, ET AL

    085 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. L-2529 December 31, 1949 - J. A. SISON v. BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY, EZT AL

    085 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. L-2720 December 31, 1949 - HEMANDAS UDHARAM v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN

    085 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. L-2893 December 31, 1949 - AGRIPINO JIMINEZ, ET AL v. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS

    085 Phil 286

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-3261   December 29, 1949 - HECTOR G. PALILEO v. FRED RUIZ CASTRO, ET AL<br /><br />085 Phil 272

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-3261. December 29, 1949.]

    HECTOR G. PALILEO, Petitioner, v. FRED RUIZ CASTRO, Judge Advocate General of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, G. P. TOMAS, Chief, Finance Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Capt. D. S. MIRANDA, Chief and Supervisor, Claims Service Branch of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Camp Murphy, Quezon City, Respondents.

    Estanislao A. Fernandez, Jr., and Leandro H. Fernandez, Jr. for Petitioner.

    N.U. Gatchalian, JAGO, HNDF for Respondents.

    SYLLABUS


    1. MANDAMUS; ESSENTIAL REQUISITES FOR ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT; LEGAL RIGHT MUST BE CLEAR AND COMPLETE. — It is a well-settled rule that the legal right of the petitioner to the performance of the particular act which is sought to be compelled by mandamus must be clear and complete. A clear legal right within the meaning of this rule means a right clearly founded in, or granted by law; a right which is inferable as a matter of law. It is essential that the claim should have been allowed by the officer vested with power to allow or reject fit. Mandamus will not be awarded unless the right to relief is clear at the time of the award. If there is any discretion as to the taking or not taking of the action sought to be forced, there is not a clear case of a legal right. Nor will mandamus issue to enforce a right which is in substantial dispute or as to which a substantial doubt exists, although objection raising mere technical question will be disregarded if the right is clear and the case meritorious.

    2. ID.; ID.; ACT SOUGHT TO BE PERFORMED IS PRACTICAL. — One other essential requisite for the issuance of the writ of mandamus is that the act sought to be performed is practical. This requirement is imposed by the very nature of the relief.


    D E C I S I O N


    TUASON, J.:


    Hector G. Palileo applies for the writ of mandamus to Lt. Col. Fred Ruiz Castro, Judge Advocate General, Lt. Col. G. P. Tomas, Chief, Finance Service, and Capt. D. S. Miranda, Chief and Supervisor, Claims Service Branch, all of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, to compel them "to release the arrears in pay of the petitioner" upon the following facts:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    In 1945 the petitioner filed a claim for arrears in pay as captain of a guerrilla unit. The claim was adjudicated and the papers were forwarded to the Finance Service, Philippine Army, for payment. But sometime in 1948, when the petitioner was employed in the Philippine National Bank, he identified the signatures of certain persons as the supposed payees of several guerrilla checks, and on the strength of his certification the checks were cashed. The alleged payees turned out to be impostors, and one Rogelio Zaide, Palileo’s friend and relative who engineered the frauds was prosecuted and convicted, the petitioner coming out as the star witness for the prosecution. Against Palileo no evidence of criminal complicity was found, but — so it was said in the course of the oral argument — he was separated from the service of the bank or required to resign.

    As a result of petitioner’s intervention in the cashing of the forged checks, the payment of his claim for arrears in pay was withheld. He was so notified and informed that the suspension of the payment was in obedience to the advice of the Judge Advocate General.

    In their return, the respondents allege that they "acted only as subordinates of the Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines, who represents the Army as the agent of the United States Army in the payment of the latter’s obligation" ; that they "as subordinates of the Chief of Staff, AFP, can not act independently at their own exclusive responsibility, except upon instructions, directives, orders or command of their commander, the Chief of Staff, AFP" ; that respondent Capt. D. S. Miranda is a mere chief of a section in the Finance Service, the chief of which is Lt. Col. G. P. Tomas; that the former receives his orders and instructions from Lt. Col. Tomas and the latter receives his in the performance of his duties from the Chief of Staff, who in turn is "the agent of the United States Army in the payment of the obligations of the latter." They further allege that the check covering the petitioner’s claim is no longer in their possession, the same having been recalled by the "Adjutant General Records Depository, Philcom, United States Army" for rechecking and investigation.

    These allegations, which are not disputed, speak for themselves and constitute complete defenses to mandamus.

    All persons whose duty it is to perform the act sought to be enforced by mandamus are necessary as well as proper party respondents. Lt. Col. Ruiz Castro has had nothing to do with the withholding of the payment in question beyond rendering an opinion upon request of one of his co-respondents, and the other respondents are more subordinates and have no duty other than that of following orders of the Chief of Staff of the Philippine Army and officers of the United States Army in charge of processing guerrillas entitled to pay and directing the payment of arrears in pay. Admittedly none of the respondents share this authority.

    It will thus be seen that the wrong parties have been sued. But brushing aside the defect of parties, the petition should be dismissed on other grounds.

    It is a well-settled rule that the legal right of the petitioner to the performance of the particular act which is sought to be compelled by mandamus must be clear and complete. A clear legal right within the meaning of this rule means a right clearly founded in, or granted by law; a right which is inferable as a matter of law. It is essential that the claim should have been allowed by the officer vested with power to allow or reject it. Mandamus will not be awarded unless the right to relief is clear at the time of the award. If there is any discretion as to the taking or not taking of the action sought to be enforced, there is not a clear case of a legal right. Nor will mandamus issue to enforce a right which is in substantial dispute or as to which a substantial doubt exists, although objection raising mere technical question will be disregarded if the right is clear and the case meritorious. (53 C.J.S., 92-95.)

    Plaintiff has no clear legal right to arrears in pay. The funds out of which his claim is to be paid, if allowed, belong to the United States Government, and the allowance of his claim is subject to conditions with the existence of which the officer called upon to grant it has to satisfy himself. Such function is not ministerial and specific but discretionary. Although the petitioner’s claim had previously been allowed, the withdrawal of the approval before payment was effected places the claim in the same situation as if it had never been acted upon. Where, after allowance of the claim, payment thereof has been ordered stopped, a ministerial officer can not be compelled by mandamus to make such payment. (55 C.J.S., 261.)

    One other essential requisite for the issuance of the writ of mandamus is that the act sought to be performed is practical. This requirement is imposed by the very nature of the relief. The check which the petitioner wants to be released having been cancelled by superior orders, it would be beyond the respondents’ power to comply with any mandate this court might make in the premises. The question of good and bad faith in the cancellation of the warrant and the fact that the cancellation was made after proceedings for mandamus had been commenced, do not alter the case. We are confronted with a fact, not a theory.

    The claimant’s remedy under the circumstances, if he has any, is by appeal to proper superior officers of the United States Army or Government or by action in appropriate court if this be feasible.

    The petition is denied without costs.

    Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes and Torres, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-3261   December 29, 1949 - HECTOR G. PALILEO v. FRED RUIZ CASTRO, ET AL<br /><br />085 Phil 272


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED