G.R. No. L-17115; November 30, 1962
GUILLERMO B. GUEVARA, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE PEDRO M. GIMENEZ, as the Auditor General of the Philippines and ISMAEL MATHAY, as the Auditor of the Central Bank, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Guillermo B. Guevara, a practicing lawyer, was engaged by then Central Bank Governor Miguel Cuaderno to collaborate with the Bank’s legal counsel in defending it and its Monetary Board in a civil case filed by R. Marino Corpus. The engagement was formalized by Monetary Board Resolution No. 1283, which authorized the Governor to arrange Guevara’s fee. Guevara proposed a retainer’s fee of P10,000 plus a P300 per diem for each hearing, which Governor Cuaderno accepted. After successfully securing the dismissal of the case, Guevara submitted his bill for the P10,000 retainer and P3,300 in per diems for eleven hearings.
The Central Bank Auditor sought guidance from the Auditor General, who, in a communication, did not object to the retainer fee but conditioned its payment in installments tied to case milestones. He also opined that the P300 per diem was “excessive” and may not be allowed in audit. Consequently, the respondents refused to approve the full payment of the bills as presented. Guevara then filed this original action for mandamus to compel the Auditor General and the Bank Auditor to approve and pass in audit his claims.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents may be compelled by a writ of mandamus to approve and pass in audit the petitioner’s bills for professional services rendered to the Central Bank.

RULING

Yes, mandamus lies. The Court granted the writ, ordering respondents to approve the payments after deducting a partial payment of P6,000 already received by Guevara. The legal logic proceeds from the settled doctrine on the ministerial duty of the Auditor General when specific conditions are met. The Court found that a valid contract was duly executed by the Central Bank Governor, acting within the scope of his authority as confirmed by the Monetary Board. An appropriation law existed to cover the disbursement, and the services were fully rendered as attested by the proper officer (the Governor). The Auditor General’s constitutional function is limited to auditing to verify these precise elements: the existence of an appropriation, a proper contract, and the actual delivery of services.
The respondents’ defenses were inconsistent and effectively conceded the contract’s validity. Their partial payment of P6,000 on the retainer and their prior communication, which only questioned the payment schedule and the reasonableness of the per diem, constituted an implied admission of the contract’s legality. The Auditor General exceeded his authority by imposing installment conditions and by disapproving the per diem as “excessive.” His constitutional role is to audit and, if he finds expenditures irregular or extravagant, to bring them to the attention of the proper administrative officer—not to veto or modify the contract’s terms. Disapproval based on perceived unreasonableness of the stipulated amount usurps the discretionary authority of the contracting officer and the Monetary Board. Since all legal requisites for payment were satisfied, the respondents had a ministerial duty to approve the vouchers, enforceable by mandamus.