Begosa vs. PVA Gaudencio A. Begosa, plantiff-appellee, vs.

Chairman, Philippine Veterans Administration;and Members of the Board of Administrators, Philippine Veterans Administration, defendants appellants . Nature: Appeal from a decision of the CFI of Manila Date: April 30, 1970 Ponente: Fernando, J. Facts: Plaintiff sought the aid of the judiciary to obtain the benefits to which he believed hewas entitled under the Veterans Bill of Rights. He filed his claim for disability pension on March 4 , 1 9 5 5 b u t w a s e r r o n e o u s l y disapproved on June 21, 1955 due to his dishonorable discharge from the army. The Board of Administrators of PVA finally approved his claim on September 2, 1964,entitling him with a pension of P30 a month, to take effect on October 5 of that year. Believing that his pension should have taken effect back in 1955 when his claim wasdisapproved, and that he is entitled to a higher pension of P50 (RA No. 1362 amendingSection 9 of RA No. 65) as a permanently incapacitated person, which was increased toP100 a month when RP 1362 was amended by RA No. 1920 on June 22, 1957, Begosafiled a case against PVA in the Court of First Instance. CFI ruled in favor plaintiff. Defendants claim that the plaintiff has not exhausted all administrative remediesbefore resorting to court action and that the plaintiffs claim is in reality a suit againstt h e G o v e r n m e n t w h i c h c a n n o t b e e n t e r t a i n e d b y t h i s C o u r t f o r l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n because the Government has not given its consent. Issue: WON the SC can entertain the suit against PVA. Held: Yes. Ratio: Where a litigation may have adverse consequences on the public treasury, whetherin the disbursements of funds or loss of property, the public official proceeded againstnot being liable in his personal capacity, then the doctrine of non-suitability

mayappropriately be invoked. However, it has no application where the suit against such a functionary hadt o b e instituted because of his failure to comply with the duty i m p o s e d b y statue appropriating public funds for the benefit of plaintiff. Also, where there is a stipulation of facts, the question before the lower court beings o l e l y o n e of law and on the face of the decision, the actuation of appellants b e i n g patently illegal, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies certainly does notcome into play.