Guevara v. Gimenez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner, Guillermo B. Guevara, a practicing lawyer, was engaged by the Governor of the Central Bank of the Philippines to assist its legal counsel in defending the Bank and its Monetary Board in a civil case filed by R. Marino Corpus. Petitioner entered his appearance and rendered professional services, including filing motions and legal arguments. Procedural History: The Central Bank's Monetary Board authorized the Governor to designate petitioner as counsel and to arrange his fees. Petitioner proposed a retainer's fee of P10,000 plus P300 per diem for hearings. The Governor accepted the retainer and per diem terms. The case was subsequently dismissed. Petitioner submitted a bill for his retainer fee and per diem. The Bank Auditor sought advice from the Auditor General, who did not object to the retainer fee provided it was paid in installments and questioned the per diem as excessive. Petitioner filed an original action for mandamus to compel the Auditor General and the Bank Auditor to approve and pass in audit his bills for professional services. The Petition: Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to approve and pass in audit his bills for professional services rendered to the Central Bank, specifically his P10,000 retainer's fee and P3,300 for eleven hearings.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondents have a ministerial duty, enforceable by mandamus, to approve and pass in audit the petitioner's bills for professional services. Whether the Central Bank has the authority to enter into a contract for professional services with the petitioner. Whether the Auditor General has the discretion to disapprove payment of the petitioner's fees on the ground that the contract was unwise or the amount unreasonable.
Ruling
The writ of mandamus is granted. Respondents are ordered to pass in audit and approve the payment of the amounts claimed by petitioner, after deducting the sum of P6,000 already collected.
Ratio Decidendi
On the ministerial duty of the Auditor General: The Court held that when a contract has been made by an agency of the Government through its proper officer, acting within the scope of his authority, and there is an appropriation to cover the disbursements, and the services have been rendered and attested to, the Auditor General has a duty, enforceable by mandamus, to approve and pass in audit the voucher for said disbursements. This duty is ministerial, meaning the Auditor General cannot refuse approval based on his personal belief that the contract was unwise or the amount unreasonable. The Court cited Radiowealth vs. Agregado, Tan C. Tee & Co. vs. Wright, and Inchausti & Co. vs. Wright to support this principle. On the authority of the Central Bank to enter into the contract: The Court affirmed the Central Bank's inherent power to employ attorneys for any compensation the Monetary Board deems reasonable, citing an opinion from the Secretary of Justice. The Court distinguished the Central Bank, governed by a special charter, from entities subject to the Revised Administrative Code, such as municipal corporations. The Court also found Section 1664 of the Revised Administrative Code inapplicable, as petitioner was retained by the Central Bank, not in the name of the Government to assist the Solicitor General. On the discretion of the Auditor General: The Court clarified that the Auditor General's constitutional authority is limited to auditing expenditures. While the Auditor General may bring to the attention of the proper administrative officer expenditures that are irregular, unnecessary, excessive, or extravagant, this duty does not grant him the power to refuse payment if the legal requirements for the expenditure are met. The Court emphasized that the Auditor General's role is to determine if funds are appropriated, the contract conforms to the appropriation, services were rendered, and payment is authorized, not to pass on the wisdom or reasonableness of the contract itself.
Main Doctrine
The Auditor General's duty to approve and pass in audit a voucher for disbursements, when a contract has been made by a government agency through its proper officer within the scope of authority, there is an appropriation, and the services have been rendered, is ministerial and enforceable by mandamus, even if the Auditor General believes the contract to be unwise or the amount unreasonable.