Guevara vs. Gimenez

GUILLERMO B. GUEVARA vs. THE HONORABLE PEDRO M. GIMENEZ, as the Auditor General of the Philippines and ISMAEL MATHAY, as the Auditor of the Central Bank

G.R. NO. L-17115           November 30, 1962

FACTS:

On or about September 1, 1959, Miguel Cuaderno, the then Governor of the Central Bank of the Philippines asked petitioner Guillermo Guevara to cooperate with the legal counsel of the Central Bank in defending the same and its Monetary Board in a Civil Case filed against them by R. Marino Corpus. Petitioner entered his appearance as counsel for the respondents in said case. 

Governor Cuaderno urged petitioner to submit a proposal setting forth the terms and conditions under which his professional services were being rendered, and petitioner stated that his professional fees would be as follows: "retainer's fee of P10,000, plus a per diem of P300 for every hearing or trial. In precise of appeal to the Supreme Court and another fee of P5,000.00". Governor Cuaderno accepted the proposal, as regards the retainer's fee and the per diem of petitioner's appearance in said case. 

Petitioner had sent to the Central Bank his bill for the retainer's fee of P10,000. The Bank Auditor sought advice from the Auditor General, who stated that he would not object to said retainer's fees of P10,000, provided that its payment was made "not in lump sum as causes or circumstances may arise which may prevent Judge Guevara from proceeding or continuing as counsel of the Bank in the aforesaid case before it is finally terminated", but, in installments with the understanding that, "in case there is no appeal from the CFI decision, the balance will be paid in full the decision has become final. As regards the P300 per diem, the Auditor General express the belief that it is "excessive and may be allowed in audit". 

Hence, the present action for mandamus filed on July 6, 1960, to compel respondent to approve payment of petitioner's retainer fee of P10,000 and his per diem aggregating P3,300, for the eleven (11) hearings attended by him. 

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent has the duty to pass in audit and approved the payment of the amounts claimed by the petitioner?

RULING:

Under our Constitution, the authority of the Auditor General, in connection with expenditures of the Government is limited to the auditing of expenditures of funds or property pertaining to, or held in trust by the Government or the provinces or municipalities thereof Article XI, section 2, of the Constitution. Such function is limited to a determination of whether there is a law appropriating funds for a given purpose; whether a contract, made by the proper officer, has been entered into in conformity with said appropriation law; whether the goods or services covered by said contract have been delivered or rendered in pursuance of the provisions thereof, as attested to by the proper officer; and whether payment therefor has been authorized by the officials of the corresponding department or bureau. If these requirements have been fulfilled, it is the ministerial duty of the Auditor General to approve and pass in audit the voucher and treasury warrant for said payment. He has no discretion or authority to disapprove said payment upon the ground that the aforementioned contract was unwise or that the amount stipulated thereon is unreasonable. If he entertains such belief, he may do so more than discharge the duty imposed upon him by the Constitution (Article XI, section 2), "to bring to the attention of the proper administrative officer expenditures of funds or Property which, in his opinion, are irregular, unnecessary, excessive or extravagant". This duty implies a negation of the power to refuse and disapprove payment of such expenditures, for its disapproval, if he had authority therefor, would bring to the attention of the aforementioned administrative officer the reasons for the adverse action thus taken by the General Auditing office, and, hence, render the imposition of said duty unnecessary.