GR L 28636; (June, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-28636, June 29, 1982
Leo Y. Mabuhay, petitioner, vs. Hon. Jesus V. Seriña, City Mayor of Cagayan de Oro City, Hon. Ismael Mathay, Auditor General of the Philippines, Leoncio Mendoza, Treasurer of the City of Cagayan de Oro and Abelardo Marante, City Auditor of the City of Cagayan de Oro, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Leo Y. Mabuhay was designated as Acting City Engineer of Cagayan de Oro by President Diosdado Macapagal. He served intermittently due to legal restraints from court cases filed by a rival claimant, Engineer Herminio Lucero. Mabuhay sought payment of his salary for specific periods: from October 3, 1963 to May 29, 1964, and from May 22, 1965 to November 3, 1965. His administrative claims were disallowed. The Deputy Auditor General denied the first claim, noting Lucero had been paid for the same period, and the government cannot be compelled to pay twice. The second claim, for service after Congress adjourned in 1965 without acting on his designation, was denied by both the Deputy Auditor General and the Executive Secretary, who found Mabuhay was not a de facto officer entitled to compensation.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel payment of his salary claims for the periods in question.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and denied the petition. The Court upheld the finality of the administrative decisions disallowing the salary claims. For the period from October 3, 1963 to May 21, 1964, the Deputy Auditor General’s disallowance was definitive. The petitioner’s subsequent withdrawal of his appeal to the President rendered that administrative decision final, barring judicial recourse. For the period from May 21, 1965 to July 31, 1965, the disallowance by both the Auditor General and the Executive Secretary acting for the President was also final and conclusive, absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion, which was not present.
Regarding the claim for August 1 to November 3, 1965, the Court ruled the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies, as he filed the mandamus suit without first submitting this claim to the Auditor General for initial audit. Critically, the Court emphasized that the audit function is not a ministerial duty but a quasi-judicial exercise of discretion. Therefore, mandamus does not lie to compel the Auditor General to pass a salary voucher in audit. The petitioner’s argument that he should be paid as a de facto officer for services rendered was unavailing, as the competent administrative authorities had already definitively ruled he was not a de facto officer entitled to compensation for the overlapping periods.