Español v. Chairman and Members of the Board of Administrators, Philippine Veterans Administration
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Maria U. Español, widow of a deceased veteran German Español, was receiving a monthly pension. Her pension and her minor children's dependent's pension were cancelled on November 1, 1951, pursuant to an administrative policy of the Philippine Veterans Administration (PVA) stating that beneficiaries receiving pensions from the U.S. Veterans Administration were not entitled to PVA pensions. Procedural History: On February 25, 1974, after more than 22 years, Maria U. Español filed a petition for mandamus with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila, seeking the restoration and continued payment of her pension and her children's dependent's pension from the date of cancellation. The Petition: The CFI of Manila rendered judgment on the pleadings, ordering the restoration of Maria U. Español's monthly pension, except for her children who had reached the age of 18. The PVA appealed to the Court of Appeals, which elevated the case to the Supreme Court due to questions of law.
Issue(s)
Whether the action for mandamus has prescribed. Whether prior exhaustion of administrative remedies was necessary. Whether the PVA can be ordered by mandamus to resume payment of pensions despite the ruling in Board of Administrators, Philippine Veterans Administration vs. Hon. Maria Agcaoili and Mauro Abrera.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the CFI's decision, ordering the PVA to pay Maria U. Español her monthly pension and her qualified minor children their monthly dependent's pension, effective November 1, 1951, as long as they qualify. The Court amended the CFI's decision to include the effective date of restoration.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prescription: The Court held that the action had not prescribed. Article 1144 of the New Civil Code provides a 10-year prescriptive period for actions based on obligations created by law. However, a cause of action accrues only when there is a right in favor of the plaintiff, an obligation on the defendant, and an act or omission by the defendant violating the plaintiff's right. The PVA's act of cancellation, being pursuant to an administrative policy, was presumed legal and thus not a violation at the time. The right of action to compel the resumption of the pension only arose when this Court declared the questioned administrative policy invalid in the case of Del Mar vs. The Philippine Veterans Administration (51 SCRA 340) on June 27, 1973. Therefore, the 10-year prescriptive period should be counted from June 27, 1973, making Maria U. Español's petition filed on February 25, 1974, well within the prescriptive period. On the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies: The Court ruled that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required when the case involves solely legal questions. Since the case primarily concerned the validity of the administrative policy and the accrual of the cause of action, judicial relief could be sought without prior resort to further administrative processes. On the issue of mandamus and public funds: The Court distinguished the present case from Board of Administrators, Philippine Veterans Administration vs. Hon. Maria Agcaoili and Mauro Abrera (58 SCRA 72). In the Agcaoili case, the action was to compel payment of increased benefits under R.A. No. 5753 for which no appropriation was made by Congress. In this case, Maria U. Español sought the restoration of pensions provided for by R.A. No. 65, as amended, for which appropriations had already been made. Furthermore, R.A. No. 5753 concerned disabled veterans, which is distinct from the appellee's claim as a surviving spouse.
Main Doctrine
The prescriptive period for an action to compel the resumption of a pension, which was cancelled pursuant to an administrative policy later declared invalid by the Supreme Court, should be counted from the date of the Supreme Court's declaration of invalidity, not from the date of cancellation.