G.R. No. L-361; May 27, 1946
Joseph A. Stiver, petitioner-appellant, vs. Paciano Dizon, Auditor General, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

On or about September 28, 1945, petitioner Joseph A. Stiver filed a sworn statement with the Director of Posts requesting the issuance of a new or duplicate pass book for a deposit of not less than P5,500 in the Postal Savings Bank. He claimed his original deposit book was destroyed by fire during the battle for the liberation of Manila. The claim was based solely on his affidavit, as practically all records and books of account of the Postal Savings Bank were also lost or destroyed by fire. The Secretary of Public Works and Communications referred the matter to the Auditor General for a ruling. In an indorsement dated November 29, 1945, the Auditor General stated he could not allow the issuance of a duplicate deposit book because the claim could not be verified and was based merely on an affidavit, which might open the door to fraud. The Bureau of Posts, by letter dated March 5, 1946, informed Stiver that his request could not be complied with based on the Auditor General’s disapproval. Stiver appealed the Auditor General’s stand to the Supreme Court, asking the Court to order the issuance of a new pass book.

ISSUE

Whether the appeal from the Auditor General’s action to the Supreme Court was proper, considering the nature of Stiver’s claim against the Postal Savings Bank.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the appeal. The Court held that the Auditor General had no authority to decide or pass upon Stiver’s claim, and therefore the appeal to the Supreme Court was improperly brought. The Court reasoned that although Stiver’s request was framed as one for a duplicate deposit book under Section 2003 of the Revised Administrative Code, the circumstances transformed it into a claim for money against the Postal Savings Bank. This was because the bank’s records were destroyed, and there was no evidence of the deposit other than Stiver’s affidavit. Issuing a duplicate book would constitute an admission of indebtedness by the bank.
The Court further held that under Commonwealth Act No. 327, the Auditor General is only authorized to decide claims of money against the Government of the Philippines. Stiver’s claim, however, was against the Postal Savings Bank, which is a juridical entity with a personality of its own, and its funds do not belong to the Government. Citing Government of the Philippine Islands vs. China Banking Corporation, the Court affirmed that debts in favor of the Postal Savings Bank are not debts in favor of the Insular Government. The creation of the National Loan and Investment Board (and its successor, the Agricultural and Industrial Bank) to invest the bank’s funds did not change the Postal Savings Bank’s nature as a separate juridical entity that can sue and be sued.
The dismissal was without prejudice to Stiver’s right to file a suit directly against the Postal Savings Bank to compel the issuance of a duplicate deposit book or to establish the existence of his deposit.