Case Digest (G.R. No. L-17115)
Facts:
Guillermo B. Guevarra v. The Hon. 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, the Supreme Court En Banc, Concepcion, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Guillermo B. Guevarra, a member of the bar, was designated by Governor Miguel Cuaderno and the Monetary Board of the Central Bank of the Philippines (by Monetary Board Resolution No. 1283, Sept. 8, 1959) to cooperate with the Bank’s legal counsel in defending the Central Bank and its Monetary Board in Civil Case No. 41226 (an action for certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto and damages) filed by R. Marino Corpus in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila. Acting on that designation, petitioner entered his appearance on September 1, 1959, and thereafter litigated the case by appearances and by filing several papers and motions on specified dates through March 17, 1960; ultimately the CFI dismissed the case on June 14, 1960.
Petitioner proposed compensation in a letter of September 11, 1959: a P10,000 retainer, P300 per diem for each hearing, and an additional P5,000 if the case were appealed to the Supreme Court. Governor Cuaderno accepted the retainer and per diem terms effective September 1, 1959. Petitioner rendered the services and on January 10, 1960 submitted a bill for the P10,000 retainer; the Central Bank paid P6,000 on account. The Bank Auditor sought the Auditor General’s advice; by communication dated June 10, 1960 the Auditor General expressed no objection to the P10,000 retainer provided it be paid in installments (P3,000 after filing answer, P3,000 after CFI decision, P2,000 after filing briefs on appeal, P2,000 when case finally terminated) and questioned the P300 per diem as “excessive.”
Because respondents would not approve in audit the balance claimed (including per diems totaling P3,300 for eleven hearings), petitioner filed an original action for a writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court on July 6, 1960 seeking to compel respondents — Pedro M. Gimenez, Auditor General, and Ismael Mathay, Bank Auditor — to pass in audit and approve payment of his bills. In their answer respondents contended that (1) the Central Bank lacked authority to enter the contract because the Solicitor General (pursuant to Section 1664, Revised Administrative Code) alone may retain special counsel for the Government; (2) the Central Bank and its Monetary Board could have been represented by their legal staff; (3) payment of P6,000 alrea...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is a writ of mandamus the proper remedy to compel the Auditor General to approve and pass in audit a voucher arising from a contract between the Central Bank and petitioner?
- Did the Central Bank lawfully have the authority to retain petitioner and fix his compensation, or is Section 1664 of the Revised Administrative Code (Solicitor General’s power to retain attorneys for the Government) controlling and prohibitive of such contract?
- If the contract and services are valid, is the Auditor General ministerially required to approve and pass in audit the claimed amounts des...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)