G.R. No. L-55160 November 29, 1983
INOCENTES L. FERNANDEZ, petitioner, vs. MANUEL S. ALBA, Minister of the Budget, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Inocentes L. Fernandez was the municipal judge of Dumalinao, Zamboanga del Sur, receiving a monthly salary of P550 under Republic Act No. 4533. Republic Act No. 6031, which increased the salary rates of municipal judges, was approved on August 4, 1969. Under this new law, petitioner’s salary would have been raised to P800 per month. However, RA 6031 was not immediately implemented. Petitioner retired on August 31, 1969, and received his retirement gratuity computed at the old rate of P550 per month. The law was finally implemented only on June 1, 1971, nearly two years after his retirement.
In 1974, petitioner began receiving a monthly retirement gratuity of P550. He subsequently sought an adjustment of his pension to the P800 rate, arguing that RA 6031 was already effective at the time of his retirement, having been approved before he retired. The Secretary of Justice and the Chief Justice had previously endorsed requests for similar salary adjustments for judges who retired after the law’s enactment but before its implementation. Petitioner’s request was forwarded to the Budget Commission, which denied it, leading to this petition for mandamus to compel the Budget Minister to release funds for the increased annuity.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent Minister of the Budget to release funds for the increased retirement benefits under RA 6031, which was enacted during his tenure but implemented only after his retirement.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court recognized the petitioner’s long service and his difficult financial situation but held that the legal and practical constraints regarding government appropriations were controlling. RA 6031, in its Section 6, only authorized the appropriation of necessary funds from the National Treasury; it did not itself constitute an actual appropriation. An authorization for appropriation is distinct from an appropriation law itself, which is needed to set aside specific funds for expenditure.
Since no actual appropriation was made under RA 6031 to cover the salary adjustments for the period from its approval in August 1969 to its implementation in June 1971, there were no legally allocated funds from which the respondent Minister could draw. The Court cited Genato v. Sy-Changco, which ruled that an appropriation is merely a legislative authorization that requires subsequent implementation through the allocation of funds. The act of allocating funds involves the exercise of administrative judgment and discretion. A writ of mandamus cannot issue to control a discretionary act; it only compels the performance of a ministerial duty. Therefore, the Budget Minister could not be compelled to release funds that were not duly appropriated. The Court concluded that the remedy for the petitioner and similarly situated retirees lies with the legislative branch to enact the necessary appropriation law.