MARIANO E. GARCIA, plaintiff-appellant, vs.

THE CHIEF OF STAFF and THE

ADJUTANT GENERAL, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES and/or THE
CHAIRMAN, PHILIPPINE VETERANS BOARD and/or THE AUDITOR GENERAL OF
THE PHILIPPINES, defendants-appellees.
G.R. No. L-20213 | 1966-01-31

This is an appeal from an order of dismissal.

Facts:
It appears that on December 1, 1961, the plaintiff-appellant, Mariano E. Garcia, filed
with the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan an action to collect a sum of money
against the Chief of Staff and the Adjutant General of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, the Chairman of the Philippine Veterans Board and or the Auditor
General. According to the complainant, sometime in July 1948, the plaintiff suffered
injuries while undergoing the 10-month military training at Camp Florida blanca,
Pampanga. Sometime thereafter he filed his claim under Common wealth Act 400
and in April 1957, he submitted some papers in support of his claim to the Adjutant
General's Office upon the latter's request. Then on May 2, 1957, he received a letter
from the said Adjutant General's Office rejecting his claim for disability benefits.
Then on November 24,1958, after further demands of the plaintiff, the Adjutant
General's Office denied the said claim because according to latter the
Commonwealth Act 400 had already been repealed by Republic Act 610 which took
effect on January 1, 1950. According to the plaintiff, he was deprived of his sight or
vision rendering him permanently disabled because of the injuries he sustained; and
that by reason of the unjustified refusal by defendants of plaintiff's claim, the latter
was deprived of his disability pension. The Philippine Veterans Administration and
the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces filed separate motions to dismiss the
complaint on the grounds that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter
of the complaint .Acting on the said motion, the court, on March 2, 1962, rendered
an order dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action has prescribed.
Motion for reconsideration of the said order having been denied, the plaintiff has
interposed this appeal.
Issue:
Whether or not the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction over the subject matter, it
being a money claim against the government.
Decision:
The court affirmed the lower courts decision on dismissing the complaint for the
simple reason that the Court of First Instance had no jurisdiction over the subject
matter, it being a money claim against the government. If there is a money claim
against the government should be filed with the Auditor General. Plus, under the
doctrine of state immunity, the state cannot be sued without its consent.