[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
256 views2 pages

Garcia V Chief of Staff 16 Scra 120

The plaintiff suffered injuries while undergoing military training and filed a claim for disability benefits that was denied. He then filed a complaint in court against the Philippine Veterans Administration and Chief of Staff of AFP to collect money for his claim. The court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, as money claims against the government must be filed with the Auditor General. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, noting that Commonwealth Act 327 requires claims be filed first with the Auditor General, and administrative remedies must be exhausted before appealing to the courts.

Uploaded by

Kristanne Louise Yu
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
256 views2 pages

Garcia V Chief of Staff 16 Scra 120

The plaintiff suffered injuries while undergoing military training and filed a claim for disability benefits that was denied. He then filed a complaint in court against the Philippine Veterans Administration and Chief of Staff of AFP to collect money for his claim. The court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, as money claims against the government must be filed with the Auditor General. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, noting that Commonwealth Act 327 requires claims be filed first with the Auditor General, and administrative remedies must be exhausted before appealing to the courts.

Uploaded by

Kristanne Louise Yu
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Garcia v Chief of Staff [16 SCRA 120]

By Unknown - April 26, 2014

Facts: The plaintiff filed with the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, an action to
collect a sum of money against the above defendants. He suffered injuries while
undergoing a 10-month military training at Camp Floridablanca, Pampanga. He filed a
claim under Commonwealth Act 400 and in April 1957 with the Adjutant General’s
Office which later disallow his claim for disability benefit. After further demands of the
plaintiff, the same Adjutant General’s Office denied the claim, alleging that the
Commonwealth Act 400 had already been repealed by RA 610 which took effect January
1, 1950. That by the reason of the injuries suffered by plaintiff, he was deprived of his
sight or vision rendering him permanently disabled; and by the reason of unjustified
refusal of defendants on the claim, plaintiff was deprived of his disability pension from
July 1948 totalling no less than P4,000 at the rate of P20/mo and suffered moral damages
and attorney’s fees the amount of P2,000. The Philippine Veterans Administration and the
Chief of Staff of AFP file separate motions to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that
the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint; that the plaintiff
failed to exhaust all administrative remedies before coming to court; that the complaint
states no cause of action; and that the cause of action is barred by the statute of
limitations. Acting on the said Motion, the Court of First Instance, on March 2, 1962,
rendered an order dismissing the complaint on the ground that action has prescribed.
Motion for reconsideration of the said order having been denied, the plaintiff has
interposed this appeal.

Issue: Whether or not the lower court is right in dismissing the complaint.

Held: The SC uphold the order of dismissal for the simple reason that the Court of First
Instance has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, it being a money claim against the
government. It was already held in the case of New Manila Lumber vs. Republic in L-
14248, 4/28/60, that a claim for the recovery of money against the government should be
filed with the Auditor General, in line with the principle that the State can not be sued
without its consent.
Commonwealth Act 327 provides:

Section 1. In all cases involving the settlement of accounts or claims, other than those of
accountable officers, the Auditor General shall act and decide the same within 60 days,
exclusive of Sundays and holidays after their presentation….

Section 2. The party aggrieved by the final decision of the Auditor General in the
settlement of an account or claim, may within 30 days from receipt of decision, take an
appeal in writing to (c) the Supreme Court, if the appellant is a private person or entity.

The well established rule that no recourse to court can be had until all administrative
remedies had been exhausted and that actions against administrative officers should not
be entertained if superior administrative officer could grant relief is applicable to this
case. The order dismissing the complaint is hereby affirmed, without pronouncement as
to costs.

You might also like