Gonzales v. Provincial Auditor of Iloilo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Ramon A. Gonzales was appointed Assistant on Complaints and Investigation for the Office of the Governor of Iloilo, effective July 1, 1961. At the time of his appointment, Gonzales was also serving as a Municipal Councilor of Lambunao, Iloilo, and had not resigned from that position. The Provincial Auditor of Iloilo refused to audit Gonzales' salary vouchers, citing a violation of Section 2175 of the Revised Administrative Code, which prohibits holding two offices simultaneously with compensation from provincial funds. This refusal extended to salary claims for July 1961 and a subsequent six-month period, as well as a voucher for per diems related to a cash advance. Procedural History: Gonzales first appealed the Provincial Auditor's decision regarding his July 1961 salary to the Auditor General, who upheld the Provincial Auditor's action on November 26, 1961. Despite this, Gonzales continued to serve until December 31, 1961. After the Provincial Auditor also refused to audit his per diem voucher on June 5, 1962, Gonzales filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo on August 31, 1962. The Provincial Fiscal, representing the respondent, argued that Gonzales had not exhausted administrative remedies and that his appointment was illegal. The Court of First Instance granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings and, on October 25, 1962, dismissed the petition, ruling that Gonzales had not exhausted his administrative remedies and had knocked at the wrong door. The Petition: The petitioner, Ramon A. Gonzales, appealed the dismissal of his mandamus petition to the Supreme Court. His appeal raised several assignments of error, primarily arguing that the lower court erred in holding he had no cause of action, that the Provincial Auditor lacked authority to declare his appointment illegal, and that his appointment was valid or, alternatively, that he was a de facto officer entitled to compensation. The Supreme Court, however, affirmed the lower court's decision, emphasizing that Gonzales failed to exhaust available administrative remedies by not appealing the Auditor General's decision to the President of the Philippines, as provided by law and the Constitution. The Court reiterated the principle that judicial intervention is unwarranted when adequate remedies exist within the executive branch.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court correctly dismissed the petition for Mandamus on the ground that the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not appealing the Auditor General's decision to the President of the Philippines.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance, dismissing the petition for mandamus.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the dismissal was legally sound because the petitioner failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available within the executive department. Under Section 3, Article XI of the 1935 Constitution and Section 2 of Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 327, a party aggrieved by the final decision of the Auditor General may appeal in writing to the President of the Philippines. The Court emphasized that the passing of a salary voucher in audit is not a ministerial function, which is a requirement for a Writ of Mandamus; rather, the Auditor General exercises discretion and quasi-judicial power in determining whether a claimant is legally entitled to payment. Because Gonzales was a government employee at the time his claim arose, the law specifically provided an administrative route via an appeal to the President. The Court applied the established rule from Bartolome v. Auditor General that no recourse to court can be had until administrative remedies are exhausted, particularly when a superior administrative officer has the authority to grant relief. Judicial interference is declined not only for convenience but out of respect for the administrative machinery of a co-equal branch of government. Consequently, because the petitioner 'knocked at the wrong door' by filing a petition for Mandamus instead of appealing to the President, the action was properly dismissed for lack of a cause of action.
Main Doctrine
A petition for mandamus will not prosper if the petitioner has not exhausted all available administrative remedies, as mandated by law and jurisprudence, before resorting to judicial action.