CASE 5

Begosa vs. PVA 32 SCRA 466

Gaudencio A. Begosa, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Chairman, Philippine Veterans Administration;

and Members of the Board of Administrators, Philippine Veterans Administration,
defendants.

FACTS:

 Plaintiff sought the aid of the judiciary to obtain the benefits to which he
believed he was 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
was disapproved, and that he is entitled to a higher pension of P50 (RA No. 1362
Amending Section 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, Begosa filed 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
remedies before resorting to court action and that the plaintiff’s 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:

Whether or not the SC can entertain the suit against PVA.

RULING:

Yes. 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-suitability
may appropriately be invoked.

However, it has no application where the suit against such a functionary had t o b e
instituted because of his failure to comply with the duty imposed by
statue appropriating public funds for the benefit of plaintiff.

Also, where there is a stipulation of facts, the question before the lower court being
solely one of law and on the face of the decision, the actuation of
a p p e l l a n t s b e i n g patently illegal, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies certainly does not come into play.