G.R. No. L-7806, July 12, 1912
CARROLL H. LAMB, petitioner, vs. W.H. PHIPPS, as Auditor for the Philippine Islands, respondent.

FACTS

Carroll H. Lamb, former superintendent of the Iwahig Penal Colony, resigned from government service due to ill health. His resignation was accepted effective December 31, 1911. Prior to this, on March 11, 1911, his accounts had been audited and balanced, and he was granted a clearance certificate. For the period from March 11, 1911, to his resignation, Lamb claimed he had fully accounted for all government property and funds. The Insular Auditor, W.H. Phipps, refused to issue a new clearance certificate necessary for Lamb to collect his accrued salary, leave credits, and transportation allowance, and to leave the Philippine Islands without committing a criminal offense. The Auditor based his refusal on the potential filing of a civil suit by one Fernandez against the government concerning transactions from 1909-1910, even though Fernandez had previously signed vouchers acknowledging full payment. Lamb alleged that the Auditor’s refusal was arbitrary, that his accounts were in order, and that he had no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.

ISSUE

Whether a writ of mandamus may be issued to compel the Insular Auditor to grant a clearance certificate to a former government employee whose accounts have been balanced and who has accounted for all government property, when the Auditor withholds the clearance based on a potential civil suit against the government.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the petition. The Court held that the duty of the Insular Auditor to issue a clearance certificate is discretionary, not ministerial. The Auditor is vested by law with the discretion to determine when an employee’s accounts are fully settled. The writ of mandamus will not issue to control or review the exercise of discretion by a public officer where the duty is discretionary, absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, fraud, or collusion. The petitioner failed to sufficiently allege facts demonstrating that the Auditor’s refusal was a gross abuse of discretion amounting to an evasion of a positive duty. The mere possibility of a future civil suit involving government funds provided a reasonable basis for the Auditor to withhold the clearance pending final settlement. The Court also noted that the petitioner had other administrative and legal remedies available.