Facts:

The case G.R. No. L-1405 involves Benjamin Abubakar as the petitioner against the Auditor General as the respondent, with the decision rendered on July 31, 1948. The core of the case centers around the refusal of the Auditor General to authorize the payment of Treasury Warrant No. A-2S67376 amounting to P1,000, which had been issued to Placido S. Urbanes, a disbursing officer for the Food Administration, on December 10, 1941. The warrant came into the hands of Abubakar, a private individual. The Auditor General cited two main reasons for not authorizing the warrant’s payment: first, the money available for redeeming treasury warrants issued before January 2, 1942, was appropriated under Republic Act No. 80 (Item F-IV-8), which the Auditor believed did not cover this warrant; second, there was a requirement that holders must prove they received the warrants for official expenditures. The first reason was deemed sufficiently valid, leading the Court to not consider the second. The

...

Facts:

Background of the Treasury Warrant

• The case involves Treasury Warrant No. A-2S67376 amounting to P1,000.
• The warrant was originally issued on December 10, 1941.
• It was made payable to Placido S. Urbanes in his official capacity as the disbursing officer of the Food Administration.
• The purpose stated in the warrant was for an “additional cash advance for Food Production Campaign in La Union.”

Transfer and Possession

• Although originally issued in favor of a government employee, the warrant later came into the possession of Benjamin Abubakar, the petitioner.
• The petitioner argues his entitlement as a holder in good faith, asserting rights similar to those of a holder in due course.

Action of the Auditor General

• The Auditor General refused to authorize the payment of the treasury warrant.
• Two reasons were given for the refusal:
• The appropriation under Republic Act No. 80, specifically Item F-IV-8, is designated for the redemption of treasury warrants issued before January 2, 1942, but only for those issued in favor of private individuals.
• One required condition was that the warrant holder must have received payment for cash advances covering official expenditures, which was alleged to be non-compliant.
• The decision focused primarily on the appropriateness of the fund allocation, finding the first reason sufficiently valid to refuse redemption.

Administrative and Legal Context

• The total outstanding treasury warrants (issued for similar periods) amounted to more than four million pesos, whereas the appropriated fund under Item F-IV-8 amounted to only P1,790,000.
• Congress made a clear distinction between warrants issued to public officers and those issued to private individuals, as evidenced by the appropriations made under Republic Act No. 80.

Issue:

• Whether the Auditor General erred in refusing to authorize the payment of the treasury warrant on the ground that it was issued in favor of a government employee rather than a private individual.
• Whether the redemption of the treasury warrant could be allowed under Republic Act No. 80, particularly when the appropriation is specifically allocated for warrants issued to private individuals.
• Whether the nature of the treasury warrant qualifies it as a negotiable instrument, thereby entitling the petitioner to the rights of a holder in due course.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)