G.R. No. 79156 June 22, 1989
ISIDRO, ZENAIDA, IRWIN, ZENDA and DORNET, all surnamed ANIMOS, petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE, its Administrator, JUAN L. GACAD and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Isidro Animos, a WWII veteran, was granted a partial disability pension by the Philippine Veterans Affairs Office (PVAO) due to a service-connected gunshot wound. His initial 25% disability rating in 1947 entitled him to a proportional pension. Subsequent laws increased the maximum pension amounts. Over the years, Animos was re-rated to 30% and later 50% disability, with corresponding proportional pension increases. His requests for the full maximum pension and dependents’ benefits were consistently denied by PVAO on the ground that he was not totally incapacitated.
The petitioners filed a mandamus action to compel PVAO to grant full pension benefits retroactively. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the case, ruling it was a money claim against the state over which it lacked jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed, adding that mandamus does not lie to control agency discretion and that administrative remedies were not exhausted.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the suit is a prohibited suit against the state, and whether mandamus is the proper remedy to compel PVAO to grant full pension benefits.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the lower courts, and ordered PVAO to pay the full pension. The Court held the suit was not against the state. The doctrine of non-suability does not apply when a public official is sued for failing to perform a statutory duty to disburse funds already appropriated by law for the plaintiff’s benefit. Here, Republic Act No. 65 , as amended, appropriated funds for veterans’ pensions. The petitioners sought to compel PVAO to perform its ministerial duty to release funds pursuant to this existing appropriation, not to claim funds from the general treasury requiring new legislative action.
On the substantive claim, the Court ruled that the law’s phrase “permanently incapacitated from work” refers to a veteran’s inability to pursue any gainful occupation due to a service-connected condition, not necessarily total physical incapacity. Since Animos’ gunshot wound was permanent and service-connected, he was entitled to the full life pension. The PVAO’s practice of granting proportional pensions based on a disability rating system was an invalid administrative regulation that contraven the clear mandate of the law. Mandamus was the proper remedy to compel the performance of this clear legal duty to award the full statutory pension.