Sayson v. Singson
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Office of the District Engineer requisitioned spare parts for a D-8 bulldozer, which was approved by the Secretary of Public Works and Communications. A public bidding was conducted, and Singkier Motor Service, owned by respondent Felipe Singson, was awarded the bid for P43,530.00. The purchase order was issued, and the items were delivered. Voucher No. 07806 was submitted for pre-audit by Highway Auditor Lorenzo Sayson. Procedural History: Highway Auditor Sayson, after verifying the reasonableness of the prices and approvals, approved the voucher for payment in the amount of P34,824.00, retaining 20% (P8,706.00) for submission to the Supervising Auditor. The voucher was paid. Subsequently, the General Auditing Office (GAO) received the voucher and, after conducting its own canvass, found that the prices charged by Singkier Motor Service were excessive compared to quotations from the exclusive dealer of caterpillar tractors. The GAO directed highway auditors to refer similar payments for appropriate action and took up the matter with the Secretary of Public Works, who circularized a telegram holding the district engineer responsible for overpricing. Charges for malversation were filed against the district engineer and civil engineer. Respondent Singson filed a mandamus suit below to collect the balance of P8,706.00, which the lower court granted, upholding the contract. The Petition: Petitioners, public officials including Highway Auditor Sayson and Supervising Auditor Fornier, filed a petition for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu. They argued that the lower court erred in upholding the contract and granting the mandamus suit, contending that the suit was essentially a money claim against the government that should have been filed with the General Auditing Office under Commonwealth Act No. 327, and that the government had not given its consent to be sued in that manner.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent's claim for the balance of the purchase price is a money claim against the government that requires exhaustion of administrative remedies under Commonwealth Act No. 327. Whether a writ of mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the payment of a money claim against the government.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu and dismissed the suit for mandamus filed against the petitioners. The Court ruled that the respondent's claim was a money claim against the government that should have been filed with the General Auditing Office, and that mandamus was not the proper remedy.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the respondent's claim for the balance of P8,706.00 was a money claim against the government. As such, it was governed by Commonwealth Act No. 327, which mandates that such claims must be presented to and settled by the Auditor General. The statute provides a specific procedure for the settlement of accounts or claims against the government and outlines the appeal process for aggrieved parties. The respondent's failure to follow this administrative procedure by filing a suit for mandamus directly in the Court of First Instance was a fatal misstep, as it bypassed the mandatory administrative remedies available. On Issue 2: The Court clarified that even assuming the validity of the claim, mandamus is not the proper remedy to enforce the collection of a money claim against the State. Mandamus is an extraordinary writ that compels the performance of a ministerial duty. Enforcing a monetary obligation against the government typically requires an ordinary action for specific performance or a claim filed under the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 327. The suit disguised as one for mandamus was, in essence, a suit against the State, which cannot prosper without the State's consent, and the statutory procedure for obtaining such consent and pursuing the claim was not followed.
Main Doctrine
The doctrine of non-suability of the State is a fundamental principle that bars suits against the government unless it has given its consent. For money claims arising from contracts, Commonwealth Act No. 327 mandates that such claims must first be presented to and settled by the Auditor General (now the Chairman of the Commission on Audit). Only the party aggrieved by the final decision of the Auditor General may appeal to the President or the Supreme Court, depending on the nature of the claim and the claimant. Resorting to a mandamus suit to compel payment of a money claim against the government, without prior exhaustion of administrative remedies, is improper and will not prosper.