FIRST
DIVISION
LA
COMPANIA
GENERAL
DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
G.
R.
No. 21700
February
5, 1924
-versus-
THE
GOVERNMENT OF
THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,
Defendant-Appellee.
D
E C I S I
O N
JOHNS,
J :
At its special session
of 1923, the Legislature passed a law entitled "An Act Defining the
Conditions
Under which the Government of the Philippine Islands May Be Sued,"
Section
1 of which provides:
"Subject to the
provisions
of this Act, the Government of the Philippine Islands hereby consents
and
submits to be sued upon any moneyed claim involving liability arising
from
contract, express or implied, which could serve as a basis of civil
action
between private parties.
"Sec. 2. A person
desiring
to avail himself of the private herein conferred must show that he has
presented his claim to the Insular Auditor and that the latter did not
decide the same within two months from the date of its presentation."
The
Complaint alleges that
about February 2, 1923, it and the defendant agreed that the
plaintiff's
steamship Mauban should receive at Manila, Philippine Islands, and
carry
and deliver to the port of Currimao, Ilocos Norte, six cases of
denatured
alcohol and four cases of office supplies, for which the defendant
agreed
to pay the usual charges. That the steamer arrived at its port of
destination
of February 13, 1923, and duly made delivery of the merchandise; that
the
reasonable charges were P283.63, no part of which has been paid.
That on the 24th day
of August, 1923, and in pursuance of the provision of Acts No. 3083 of
the Philippine Legislature, plaintiff presented its claim to the
Insular
Auditor, who, on the same date, decided the same adversely to
plaintiff's
contentions.
Wherefore, plaintiff
prays judgment against the defendant for the above-mentioned sum,
together
with the interest thereon at the legal rate and for its costs of suit.
The defendant filed
a general demurrer to the complaint, which was sustained. The plaintiff
refused to plead further, and a corresponding judgment was entered,
from
which he appeals, claiming that "lower court erred in sustaining the
demurrer
to the complaint.
The question involved
is the legal force and effect of Section 2 of Act No. 3083 above
quoted.
Plaintiff contends that the purpose and intent of the Act was to enable
a claimant, who has a claim against the Government arising out of a
contract,
express or implied, to present it to the Government, and that, if the
claim
is denied by the Insular Auditor at any time within sixty days after
presented,
or that if the Auditor failed to allow or reject the claim for the
period
of sixty days, after it was presented, that an action can then be
maintained
against the Government to recover the amount of the claim. Plaintiff
also
claims that section 2 should be construed to read that where a person
"has
presented his claim to the Insular Auditor, or that the latter did not
decide the same within two months from the date of its presentation."
The rule is universal
that no matter how meritorious a claim may be, in the absence of
express
authority, a cause of action cannot be maintained upon it against the
Government.
It is admitted that
as a condition precedent, and in the ordinary course of business, the
claim
must first be presented to the Insular Auditor, and that in the instant
case, it was presented and rejected upon the day it was presented. But
appellant contends that the Act should be construed to mean that when
its
claim was rejected, its cause of action then accrued.
We have read the Act
as it was originally presented to the Legislature, and it is very
apparent
that the purpose and intent of the original Act was to provide that a
cause
of action could be maintained against the Government on a claim which
was
presented to, and disallowed by, the Insular Auditor. It is also very
apparent
that the bill, as enacted, does not allow from suing the Government,
except
upon the express condition stated in Section 2 of the Act.
Giving the language
its plain, ordinary meaning, it should be construed to read that a
claimant
must first present his claim to the Insular Auditor, and second, that
he
did not allow or reject it "within two months from the date of its
presentation."
In the instant case,
the claim was rejected upon the date it was presented.
Inasmuch as it is an
unusual and extraordinary remedy, the right to maintain an action
against
the Government must be conferred by the plain, express provision of a
statute
the meaning of which should not be left to doubt or construction.
In the instant case,
upon the facts stated, it is very apparent that the Legislature never
intended
that the plaintiff could maintain a cause of action against the
Government.
The judgment is
affirmed,
with costs. So ordered.
Araullo, C.J.,
Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, Ostrand, and Romualdez, JJ.,
concur. |