Fernandez v. Alba
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Inocentes L. Fernandez, a former municipal judge, was receiving a monthly salary of P550.00 under Republic Act No. 4533. Republic Act No. 6031, approved on August 4, 1969, increased the salaries of municipal judges. Petitioner retired on August 31, 1969, and received his retirement gratuity based on his old salary because Republic Act No. 6031 had not yet been implemented. The said Act was implemented on June 1, 1971, two years after petitioner's retirement. Petitioner began receiving his retirement gratuity at the rate of P550.00 per month in September 1974. He sought to have his monthly retirement gratuity increased from P550.00 to P800.00, citing Republic Act No. 6031. Procedural History: Petitioner made several appeals and letters to various government officials, including the President and the Minister of the Budget, seeking the adjustment of his retirement gratuity. The Budget Commissioner, in an indorsement dated August 22, 1975, denied the request, stating that Republic Act No. 6031 did not appropriate funds and that the allocation of funds involves discretion. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for mandamus to compel the Minister of the Budget to release sufficient funds for the payment of the increase in his monthly annuity pursuant to Republic Act No. 6031.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner is entitled to the benefits provided for under Republic Act No. 6031, which was enacted during his tenure but implemented after his retirement, considering the availability of funds. Whether mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the release of funds for the increased retirement benefits, given the discretionary power involved in fund allocation.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to the increased benefits and that mandamus is not the proper remedy.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement to benefits under Republic Act No. 6031: The Court found the petitioner's contention to be without merit. While acknowledging the petitioner's difficult situation, the Court emphasized that the payment of increased benefits must yield to the overriding economic consideration of the availability of funds. Republic Act No. 6031, Section 6, merely "authorized to be appropriated out of any funds in the National Treasury not otherwise appropriated" such sums as may be necessary. This authorization did not constitute an actual appropriation of funds. As pointed out by the Commissioner of the Budget, there were no funds appropriated under Republic Act No. 6031 to cover the adjustment of terminal leaves, retirement gratuities, and salary differentials for the period in question. The Court reiterated that an appropriation is a legislative authorization, and such authorization requires implementation through the allocation of funds. Without an actual appropriation, there was nothing to program and allot. On the propriety of mandamus: The Court held that even if the petitioner were entitled to the benefits, he cannot compel the Minister of the Budget to release sufficient amounts for the payment of the increase. The allocation of funds entails the exercise of judgment and discretion, which cannot be controlled by a writ of mandamus. The Court cited the case of Genato vs. Sy-Changco to support the principle that mandamus will not lie to control the exercise of discretion. Furthermore, the Court referred to Board of Administrators, PVA vs. Agcaoili, where it refrained from ordering payment of benefits due to the lack of appropriated funds, stating that retirees should appeal to the law-making authority for the appropriation of necessary funds. Therefore, the petitioner's recourse is to appeal to the legislative branch for the appropriation of funds, not to compel the executive branch through mandamus.
Main Doctrine
A petition for mandamus to compel the release of funds for increased retirement benefits will not prosper if the law authorizing such increase merely authorized an appropriation but did not actually appropriate the funds, as the allocation of funds involves the exercise of judgment and discretion which cannot be controlled by mandamus.