GR L 6056; (August, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-6056 August 11, 1953
TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch I and ANTONIO OJEDA, respondents.
FACTS
Antonio Ojeda filed a civil case (No. 16887) in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the Treasurer of the Philippines to compel payment of P3,056 under Republic Act No. 734 for certain Philippine National Bank (PNB) notes he had deposited. After the suit was filed, Republic Act No. 831 was enacted, amending Republic Act No. 734. Republic Act No. 831, which governs the redemption of illegally issued PNB notes, imposes specific conditions precedent to payment. These include the Treasurer completing a “master record” of all registrants to prevent fraud, adopting strict precautionary measures, and issuing necessary rules and regulations. The Treasurer alleges that compiling this master record from records all over the Philippines is an enormous, ongoing task. The Treasurer of the Philippines petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the trial court’s orders and to prohibit the judge from hearing the case, arguing lack of jurisdiction and that the suit is against the state.
ISSUE
1. Whether the respondent judge had jurisdiction to hear and compel payment in the civil case filed by Ojeda.
2. Whether the suit is maintainable as it is effectively a suit against the State without its consent.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition for prohibition. The Court ruled that the respondent judge had no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial. Ojeda had not acquired any enforceable right or cause of action because the conditions precedent under Republic Act No. 831—completion of the master record, issuance of rules and regulations, and adoption of precautionary measures—had not been fulfilled. The Treasurer was still in the process of compiling the necessary records. Furthermore, the suit is against the State and cannot be maintained without its consent. The demand would involve disbursement of public funds and enforcement of a state obligation under a statute that is still subject to recall, repeal, or amendment. The appropriated funds had not been segregated from the general treasury, and note holders had not acquired a proprietary right to them. The Court commanded the respondent judge to desist from proceeding with the trial and set aside all interlocutory orders issued in the case.