Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1967 > May 1967 Decisions > G.R. No. L-23095 May 12, 1967 - PEDRO D. GENATO v. FAUSTINO SY-CHANGCO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-23095. May 12, 1967.]

PEDRO D. GENATO, for himself and in behalf of all other employees of the Court of First Instance of Manila similarly situated as himself, Petitioner, v. FAUSTINO SY-CHANGCO in his capacity as Commissioner of Budget and PEDRO GIMENEZ in his capacity as Auditor General, Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


This is an original action for mandamus, to compel the Budget Commissioner to release the sum of P292,188 for salary differentials of petitioner Pedro D. Genato and other employees of the Court of First Instance of Manila — on whose behalf apart from his own, he has filed this case — for the period from July 1, 1963 to June 30, 1964, as well as "the correspondingly appropriation for the 1964-65 fiscal year." In the petition herein it was, like wise, prayed that a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction be issued restraining the Budget Commissioner and the Auditor General from reporting said sum of P292,188 "as reverted to the unappropriated general fund of the National Treasury at the close of office hours of June 30, 1964, and ordering said respondent instead to report and/or record that said amount remain(s), pending further orders of this Honorable Court, as an outstanding obligation, payable under the current appropriation, for the Court of First Instance of Manila under Republic Act No. 3845."cralaw virtua1aw library

Upon the filing of said petition, on July 1, 1964 a restraining order was issued, "effective immediately up to July 7, 1964," on which date the petition for preliminary injunction was heard. Thereupon, the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for was issued without bond.

It is not disputed that, on October 5, 1963, herein petitioner and many other employees of the Court of First Instance of Manila wrote a letter-petition, addressed to the President of the Philippines, through proper channel, for the implementation of their salary increases, as authorized in said Republic Act No. 3845, the general appropriation act for the fiscal year 1963-1964. Favorable action thereon was recommended in the 1st indorsement of the Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila 1 forwarding said letter-petition to the President, through the Secretary of Justice, as well as in the latter’s indorsement, 2 forwarding the basic communication to the Executive Secretary. Inasmuch as, this notwithstanding, the release prayed for was not made, petitioner instituted the present action for mandamus with a writ of preliminary injunction, on his behalf and that of his co-employees in the aforementioned court of first instance against the Budget Commissioner and the Auditor General.

The petition is predicated upon the theory that upon approval of Republic Act No. 3845, the full amount therein appropriated for the judicial department had become automatically "allotted and immediately available to said department for the use of our courts and the court personnel . . .

In their answer to the petition, respondents alleged that the budget submitted by the President to Congress appropriated the amount necessary to grant to herein petitioner and those represented by him a one grade increase this being the only increase that the condition of our national treasury could bear: that congress, however, increased by as much as three grade the salaries of a number of court personnel, "without taking into consideration the income in the government as estimated in the budget and the likelihood that said income might not be realized fall much below expectations, as it happened; that shortly after the approval of Republic Act No. 3845, and upon the request of the Executive Judge of the court of First Instance of Manila, made on August 12, 1963 and its favorable indorsement by the Secretary of Justice, the Budget Commissioner released the amounts necessary to effect the one grade increase provided in the budget submitted by the President to Congress; that the Commissioners failure to release the amount necessary to cover the salary differentials involved in the petition herein was due to lack of funds, as envisioned in the budget submitted by the President; that there has been a failure to exhaust the administrative remedy available to petitioner herein, who had a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against the action taken by the respondents, which was to appeal therefrom — which petitioner has not done — to the President, who exercises executive control and supervision over the Budget Commissioner; that an appropriation "is per se nothing more than the legislative authorization prescribed by the Constitution that money be paid out of the treasury;" that, being merely such authorization, Republic Act No. 3845 does not impose upon the respondents the ministerial duty to order the release of the funds appropriated in said Act; that, moreover, the said authorization requires implementation, which must necessarily be in the nature of a budgetary system of allocation of funds, so that the income realized by the government from time to time, may be effectively apportioned and utilized to the fullest extent to serve the vital needs of the nation; and that such allocation entails the exercise of judgment and discretion which cannot be controlled. by mandamus.

Upon a review of the records, we are satisfied that the petition herein should be dismissed. Regardless of whether not the Budget Commissioner has a ministerial duty to release any of the funds appropriated in Republic Act No. 3845, it appears that petitioner and those whom he claims to represent, as a class, have no cause of action against respondents herein. The reason is that petitioner and those represented by him hold their respective offices in pursuance of appointments stating that they shall receive the compensation they are now getting, not the increased pay authorized by Republic Act No. 3845. To be entitled to such increased pay, they need another appointment therefor which has not been extended in their favor. Thus, in the letter to the Secretary of Justice, dated October 12, 1963, the Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, urged that the amounts needed to cover the salary increases sought by the court employees be released in order that "promotional appointments effective July 1, 1963" could "be issued" in their favor.

No such promotional appointments for the amounts involved in the petition herein having made, it follows that petitioner and his aforementioned co-employees are not as yet legally entitled to said amounts, and, hence, have no cause of action for mandamus to compel the release therefore.

Wherefore, the petition herein should be, as it is hereby dismissed, and the writ of preliminary injunction, issued by this Court on July 7, 1964, accordingly, dissolved, without special pronouncement as to costs.

It is so ordered.

Reyes, J .B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J .P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. dated October 7, 1963.

2. dated October 11, 1963.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1967 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20627 May 4, 1967 - ‘Y’ SHIPPING CORPORATION v. MAXIMO ERISPE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20262 May 11, 1967 - EMILIA SOMODIO v. RUFO S. SUCALDITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23095 May 12, 1967 - PEDRO D. GENATO v. FAUSTINO SY-CHANGCO

  • G.R. No. L-21755 May 13, 1967 - IN RE: CHUA BENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23656 May 15, 1967 - IN RE: TEOFILO YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20810 May 16, 1967 - IN RE: ALFONSO PO CHU KING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22791 May 16, 1967 - CIRILO BARNACHEA, ET AL. v. EMILIANO C. TABIGNE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23534 May 16, 1967 - JOSE A. ARCHES v. ANACLETO I. BELLOSILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20900 May 16, 1967 - CAMPUA UY TINA v. DAVID P. AVILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22147 May 16, 1967 - IN RE: LEE BING HOO v. REPULIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22273 May 16, 1967 - PAGKAKAISANG ITINATAGUYOD NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA ANG TIBAY, ET AL. v. ANG TIBAY INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23501 May 16, 1967 - FILIPINAS INVESTMENT & FINANCE CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-22793 May 16, 1967 - CARMELITA TAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23729 May 16, 1967 - RIZAL SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24281 May 16, 1967 - ROSITA C. TALEON, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17463 May 16, 1967 - TEODORO SUMALJAG BONGAL, ET AL. v. BARBARA P. VDA. DE BONGAL

  • G.R. No. L-17500 May 16, 1967 - PEOPLE’S BANK AND TRUST CO., ET AL. v. DAHICAN LUMBER COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18937 May 16, 1967 - NATIVIDAD E. IGNACIO, ET AL. v. EDUARDO ELCHICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18981 May 16, 1967 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MOISES SONGCUYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19791 May 16, 1967 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. RAFAEL HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23212 May 18, 1967 - CAUSAPIENCIA CLEMENTE, ET AL. v. H.E. HEACOCK CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24105 May 18, 1967 - JAIME BALITE v. JUDGE DOMINGO CABANGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18936 May 23, 1967 - NATIVIDAD E. IGNACIO, ET AL. v. PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY INC.

  • G.R. No. L-21675 May 23, 1967 - NATIONAL SHIPYARDS AND STEEL CORP. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22336 May 23, 1967 - MERCEDES DE LA MAZA v. MARCELO OCHAVE

  • G.R. No. L-23607 May 23, 1967 - GO KA TOC SONS & CO., ETC. v. RICE AND CORN BOARD

  • G.R. No. L-16177 May 24, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PANCHO A. PELAGIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20383 May 24, 1967 - PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-20426 May 24, 1967 - MIGUEL ALBANO, ET AL. v. FERMIN RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20909 May 24, 1967 - IN RE: VICENTE TIU TUA PI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21281 May 24, 1967 - EDILBERTO BALANE, ET AL. v. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23074 May 24, 1967 - POLICARPIO REAL v. JESSIE TROUTHMAN

  • G.R. No. L-22730 May 24, 1967 - RAMON A. GONZALES v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20954 May 29, 1967 - ELIAS GALLAR v. HERMENEGILDA HUSAIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23450 May 24, 1967 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. MAGDALENA AYSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23507 May 24, 1967 - JUANA LAUREL-MANILA, ET AL. v. DIONISIO GALVAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23925 May 24, 1967 - COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF THE PORT OF MANILA v. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24262 May 24, 1967 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL. v. CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26153 May 24, 1967 - GUALBERTO TENCHAVEZ v. ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEVELOPMENT CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18838 May 25, 1967 - CARMEN M. PASCUAL, ET AL. v. RAMON MENESES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17462 May 29, 1967 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE RAZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19421 May 29, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGRIPINO FONTANOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20853 May 29, 1967 - BONIFACIO BROS., INC., ET AL. v. ENRIQUE MORA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21199 May 29, 1967 - JOSE G. SYSON v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21807 May 29, 1967 - JOSE C. ZULUETA v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22345 May 29, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADOR GOMEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20897 May 30, 1967 - IN RE: TY ENG HUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21739 May 30, 1967 - IN RE: ONG CHIAN SUY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21445 May 30, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MONICO REYES

  • G.R. No. L-23113 May 30, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO COMIGJOD

  • G.R. Nos. L-18292-4 May 30, 1967 - CRESENTE PICHAY, ET AL. v. ISAIAS CELESTINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19453-4 May 30, 1967 - GREGORIO E. FAJARDO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22558 May 31, 1967 - GREGORIO ARANETA, INC. v. PHILIPPINE SUGAR ESTATES DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD.

  • G.R. No. L-27l97 May 31, 1967 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. MUNICIPALITY OF LIBMANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25656 May 31, 1967 - NAZARIO NALOG, ET AL. v. NEMESIO DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-23236 & L-23254 May 31, 1967 - CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23368 May 31, 1967 - ARTURO H. TROCIO v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL.