G.R. No. L-11973; June 30, 1959
FELIPE M. ROLDAN, plaintiff-appellant, vs. PHILIPPINE VETERANS BOARD, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Plaintiff Felipe M. Roldan, a first-grade Civil Service eligible, was appointed clerk in the Philippine Veterans Board on March 26, 1953. On March 10, 1954, defendant Antonio F. Garcia, acting Administrative Officer and member of the Board, informed Roldan by letter that his services would terminate on March 25, 1954, citing age restrictions under Act 2589, a Cabinet Resolution, and Republic Act 728. Roldan was separated, and Juan Domingo was appointed in his place. Roldan successfully instituted a quo warranto proceeding against Domingo, resulting in a final and executed court decision declaring Roldan’s ouster illegal and ordering his reinstatement, which was effected on September 24, 1955. Subsequently, Roldan filed the present action against the Philippine Veterans Board and its five members to recover his back wages for the approximately 18-month period of his illegal separation, plus moral damages and attorney’s fees. The Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed the complaint, ruling that the action was effectively a suit against the state without its consent, as the Board was a mere government agency with no power to appropriate funds for back salaries, which had already been paid to Domingo.

ISSUE

Whether the suit for recovery of back wages against the Philippine Veterans Board and its members is a suit against the state that cannot prosper without the state’s consent.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, dismissing the complaint. The Court held that the Philippine Veterans Board, created under Republic Act No. 65 and functioning under the Department of National Defense, is a mere unincorporated agency or office of the government without a separate juridical personality, incapable of suing or being sued. It is not a juridical person under Article 44 of the Civil Code. A suit against such an agency is in reality a suit against the government itself. Following the precedent in Metropolitan Transportation Service vs. Paredes and Syquia vs. Almeda Lopez, the Court ruled that a suit against a government officer or agency that would result in a financial liability or charge against the government is deemed a suit against the state. Since the defendant Board members acted officially in effecting Roldan’s separation, any judgment for back wages would constitute a liability against the Philippine Government, and such a suit cannot proceed without the government’s consent, which was not obtained. The Court also noted that the Board lacked the power to appropriate funds for such payment, as that power resides solely with Congress.