G.R. No. L-10062; August 28, 1956
PAULA AQUINO POLICARPIO, petitioner-appellee, vs. THE PHILIPPINE VETERANS BOARD, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

The petitioner, Paula Aquino Policarpio, is the widow of a member of the Armed Forces killed in action in 1942. Her application for a pension was duly approved by the Philippine Veterans Board. This pension was stopped in July 1948 because she was receiving a similar pension from the U.S. Veterans Administration. The U.S. Veterans Administration later certified that the widow had ceased receiving her pension from them since 1951. Consequently, on February 11, 1953, petitioner applied to the Philippine Veterans Board for the resumption of her pension. On February 28, 1953, the Secretary of the Philippine Veterans Board issued a memorandum stating that petitioner’s pension was resumed effective January 30, 1951, and the auditor caused treasury warrants to be prepared in her favor. However, the delivery of these warrants was subsequently stopped because the appellant Board itself “had not yet granted the restoration of the petitioner’s pension.” The Board, in its answer to the mandamus petition, specifically pleaded that the preparation of the warrants was ordered by mistake, as Policarpio’s petition had not yet been acted upon by the Board.

ISSUE

Whether the writ of mandamus may properly issue to compel the Philippine Veterans Board to release the treasury warrants for the petitioner’s accumulated pension, despite the Board’s claim that the resumption of her pension had not yet been officially approved by the Board and that the preparation of the warrants was unauthorized.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Court of First Instance. It held that the lower court’s decision ordering the release of the warrants was untenable. Since it was an established fact that the resumption of the pension had not yet been approved by the Veterans Board, the memorandum of the Secretary and the preparation of the warrants were unauthorized. Mandamus does not lie to control the discretionary action of a pension board, nor can it be used to compel the delivery of warrants issued by mistake. The proper remedy was for the court to order the Board to act on the petitioner’s application. The Court ruled that the lower court should have limited itself to ordering the Board to take action upon Policarpio’s petition for resumption of her pension payments, without prescribing what that action should be. The decision was modified to require the appellant Philippine Veterans Board to act without delay upon the application of February 11, 1953, for the restoration of pension benefits.