GR No.

L-30044
Sayson et.al. vs. Singson
Ponente: Fernando, J.

Facts:
On January 1967, the Office of the District Engineer in Cebu requisitioned spare parts for the repair of
a D-8 bulldozer. The requisition was signed by the District Engineer and the Requisition Officer which was
approved by the Secretary of Public Works and Communications (PWC). On May 5, 1967 a public bidding
was conducted in lieu of the requisition and was awarded to Singkier Motor Service which was owned by
the respondent Felipe Singson. The winning bid price of Php 43,530 was approved by the Sec. of PWC.
The petitioner, Highway Auditor Lorenzo Sayson, received the purchase voucher. He found the price
reasonablei and approved payment of the voucher but withheld 20% of the price, equivalent to PhP 8,706,
until supporting documents for the transaction was submitted to the Supervising Auditor for review.
However, after the documents were submitted, the General Auditing Office found the transaction to be
overpriced by at least PhP 40,000 based on the canvass done to various spare parts suppliers in Manila.
Malversation charges were filed against the district and civil engineers involved. Consequently, a
mandamus suit was filed by the respondent compelling the government auditors to approve collection of
the 20% balance. The Courts of First Instance ruled in favor of the respondent. Thus, the petitioners filed
this petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.

Issue: WON collection by the respondent is valid through a mandamus suit filed against the petitioners

Doctrine: Money Claims to the Government; Doctrine of Non-Suability of the State

Held/Ratio Decidendi:
No. The respondents cause of action is a money claim against the government for the payment of the
balance of the spare parts cost. Even if the claim is valid, mandamus is not the remedy to enforce the
collection of such claim against the State but an ordinary action for specific performance. The suit
disguised as mandamus is actually a suit against the State which cannot be entertained without the
consent of the State. The respondent should have filed his claim with the General Auditing Office under
the provisions of Commonwealth Act 327 which prescribes the conditions under which money claims
against the government may be filed. It is provided in the said act that all claims on settlements shall be
decided within 60 days by the Auditor General. Furthermore, appeals on decision must be submitted in
writing, within 30 days from receipt of such decision, to the President of the US, or President of the
Philippines, or Supreme Court of the Philippines if the appellant is a private person or entity.

It is further held that for consent from the state to be secured, the State may require certain administrative
proceedings to be had and exhausted. The appeal by the party aggrieved can be brought to the judiciary
only after the consent has been made. However, in the case at bar, there was no ruling from the Auditor
General. Even if a ruling was obtained, the proper court for the appeal should have been the Supreme
Court. The Court of First Instance could not legally act on the matter.

Decision:
The decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu was reversed and set aside and the suit for
mandamus against the petitioners was dismissed.
i
Based on the indorsement of the Division Engineer and the Commissioner of Public Highways, the approval of the Sec. of
PWC, and the verification of a representative from the Bureau of Supply Coordination