[ G. R. No. L-26532. August 30, 1967 ] 127 Phil. 635
[ G. R. No. L-26532. August 30, 1967 ]
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES. D E C I S I O N
BENGZON, J.P., J.:
Plaintiff-appellant moves for reconsideration of the decision.
Appellant-movant contends that the case on which the decision is based, Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. vs. Customs Arrastre Service,[1] goes against previous rulings of this Court in stating that “plaintiff should have filed its present claim to the General Auditing Office, it being for money, under the provisions of Commonwealth Act 327, which state the conditions under which money claims against the Government may be filed.” Citing Compania General de Tabacos vs. French,[2] and Philippine Operations, Inc. vs. Auditor General,[3] it argues that its present claim is not one that may be filed with the Auditor General under Act 3083 and Commonwealth Act 327 because under said law the Auditor General cannot decide unliquidated claims nor claims in which the liability of the Government is in issue.
As to the first point, the present claim has not been shown to be unliquidated. Appellant claims a fixed amount of P1,543.58. A liquidated claim within the power of the Auditor General to decide under the above-stated statutes, is a claim for money the amount of which is either fixed or can be readily determined from vouchers, reports or other means within reach of accounting officers (Compania General de Tabacos vs. French, supra, at p. 44). Since in the present case, there are the shipping papers and invoices readily showing the precise value of the articles received from the carrier, but not delivered to the consignee, the fixed amount claimed does not call for the kind of deep and broad investigation of factual evidence that leaves the amount to be appreciated to the discretion of the investigator. Rather, it is one which can fairly easily be determined from accessible papers and records of the shipment.
The second point is not supported by the rulings movant cites. Nowhere in Compañia General de Tabacos case or the Philippine Operations case is it stated that the Auditor General has no power to decide a claim if the liability of the Government is at issue. A liquidated claim does not become unliquidated because the Government denies liability. For its amount would still be fixed or determinable from readily accessible supporting papers. It is precisely for the Auditor General to decide whether to allow or reject the claim. The power of the Auditor General to pass upon the issue of liability of the Government in claims under Act 3083 and Commonwealth Act 327 has in fact been inferentially recognized in several cases decided by this Court.[4]
In Eleazar vs. Auditor General, L-21693, April 30, 1966, this Court expressly declared that it “finds no valid reason for interfering with the discretion exercised by the Auditor General when he denied the request of petitioner” for the payment of bonus, cost of living allowances, and gift certificates
Finally, lest it be forgotten, the principal issue here is suability of the State; regardless of whether or not appellant’s claim is one that may be pressed by following the procedure in Act 3083 and Commonwealth Act 327, the fact remains that direct suit against the State, as herein, cannot be maintained without its consent.
Wherefore, the motion for reconsideration is denied for lack of merit. So ordered.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zal-divar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.
Motion dienied.