Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 83 views

    5.begoso v. PVA 32 SCRA 466

    Uploaded by

    Maan Laspinas
    Gaudencio A. Begosa filed a complaint against the Philippine Veterans Administration to obtain veteran benefits he was entitled to but was denied. The trial court ruled in Begosa's favor. The Philippine Veterans Administration appealed, arguing Begosa needed to exhaust administrative remedies first and that he was suing the state without consent. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that where public officials fail to comply with statutory duties to disburse funds, the suit is not against the government but to compel officials to act accordingly. Therefore, Begosa was not required to exhaust other remedies and the suit could proceed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    5.begoso v. PVA 32 SCRA 466

    Uploaded by

    Maan Laspinas
    83 views1 page
    Gaudencio A. Begosa filed a complaint against the Philippine Veterans Administration to obtain veteran benefits he was entitled to but was denied. The trial court ruled in Begosa's favor. The Philippine Veterans Administration appealed, arguing Begosa needed to exhaust administrative remedies first and that he was suing the state without consent. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that where public officials fail to comply with statutory duties to disburse funds, the suit is not against the government but to compel officials to act accordingly. Therefore, Begosa was not required to exhaust other remedies and the suit could proceed.

    Original Title

    5.Begoso v. PVA 32 SCRA 466

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Gaudencio A. Begosa filed a complaint against the Philippine Veterans Administration to obtain veteran benefits he was entitled to but was denied. The trial court ruled in Begosa's favor. The Philippine Veterans Administration appealed, arguing Begosa needed to exhaust administrative remedies first and that he was suing the state without consent. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that where public officials fail to comply with statutory duties to disburse funds, the suit is not against the government but to compel officials to act accordingly. Therefore, Begosa was not required to exhaust other remedies and the suit could proceed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    83 views1 page

    5.begoso v. PVA 32 SCRA 466

    Uploaded by

    Maan Laspinas
    Gaudencio A. Begosa filed a complaint against the Philippine Veterans Administration to obtain veteran benefits he was entitled to but was denied. The trial court ruled in Begosa's favor. The Philippine Veterans Administration appealed, arguing Begosa needed to exhaust administrative remedies first and that he was suing the state without consent. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that where public officials fail to comply with statutory duties to disburse funds, the suit is not against the government but to compel officials to act accordingly. Therefore, Begosa was not required to exhaust other remedies and the suit could proceed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Gaudencio A. Begosa, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.

    Philippine Veterans Administration, Defendants-Appellants.


    32 SCRA 466 (G.R. No. L-25916. April 30, 1970)

    Facts

    1. Gaudencio A. Begosa sought for the help of the judiciary to obtain the benefits
    rightfully his under the Veterans’ Bill of Rights. Petitioner asserted in his complaint
    that after having submitted all the supporting papers relative to his complaint, there
    was a disapproval on the part of defendants on the ground of his having been
    dishonorably discharged. Then came the allegation that there was an approval on
    his claim on September 2, 1964 but effective only as of October 5 of that year, and
    for amount much less than that to which he was entitled under the law. The relief
    sought was the payment, as of the date to which he believed his right to pension
    should have been respected, of the sums, which he felt were legally due and owing
    to him.

    2. Honorable Edilberto Soriano, found for plaintiffs, after a careful and meticulous study
    of the applicable statutory provisions.

    3. Defendants appealed, relying once more on the principal grounds raised below that
    plaintiff should have exhausted his administrative remedies before coming to court
    and that he was in fact suing the State without its consent having been obtained.

    Issue: Whether plaintiff is suing the State without its consent.

    Ruling

    The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of Honorable Edilberto Soriano.


    It is equally well-settled that where a litigation may have adverse consequences on the
    public treasury, whether in the disbursements of funds or loss of property, the public
    official proceeded against not being liable in his personal capacity, then the doctrine of
    non-suability may appropriately be invoked. It has no application, however, where the
    suit against such a functionary had to be instituted because of his failure to comply with
    the duty imposed by statute appropriating public funds for the benefit of plaintiff or
    petitioner.
    The doctrine announced by us in Ruiz v. Cabahug finds relevance: "We hold that under
    the facts and circumstances alleged in the amended complaint, which should be taken
    on its face value, the suit is not one against the Government, or a claim against it, but
    one against the officials to compel them to act in accordance with the rights to be
    established by the contending architects, or to prevent them from making payment and
    recognition until the contending architects have established their respective rights and
    interests in the funds retained and in the credit for the work done."

    You might also like