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 he was entitled under the Veterans Bill of Rights. He filed his claim for disability pension on March 4, 1955 but was erroneously 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 to P100 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 plaintiffs claim is in reality a suit against the Government which cannot be entertained by this Court for lack of jurisdiction 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, 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 to be 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 appellants being patently illegal, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies certainly does not come into play.