8/15/2019 Digest Be Go Savs Chairman

1/2

 

Begosa vs. PVAGaudencio 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 theVeterans’ Bill of Rights.

•

He filed his claim for disability pension on March 4, 1955 but was erroneouslydisapproved 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 plaintiff’s claim is in reality a suit againstthe Government which cannot be entertained by

this Court for lack of jurisdictionbecause 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 offunds or loss of property, the public official proceeded againstnot being liable in his personal capacity, then

the

doctrine of non-suitabilitymayappropriately be invoked.

•

However, it has

8/15/2019 Digest Be Go Savs Chairman

2/2

no application where the suit against such a functionary hadto be institutedbecause of his failure to comply with the duty imposed bystatue appropriatingpublic funds for the benefit of plaintiff.•

 Also, where there is a stipulation of facts, the question before the lower court beingsolely one of law and on

the face of the decision, the actuation of appellants beingpatently illegal, the doctrine of exhaustion of

administrative remedies certainly does notcome into play.