EMILIANO M. PEREZ; AS CHIEF OF THE NUEVA ECIJA PROVINCIAL HOSPITAL, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. THE CITY MAYOR, THE MUNICIPAL BOARD AND THE CITY TREASURER, ALL OF THE CITY OF …

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of
Nueva Ecija,dismissing a petition for mandamus seeking to compel the
respondents to appropriate the Sum of P24,983.12 from the general fund
of Cabanatuan City to be paid to the Nueva Ecija Provincial Hospital.

In his petition, the Chief of the Nueva Ecija Provincial Hospital,
who claims to be the officer bound by law to administer and protect the
interests of said hospital, alleged that under section 2 (a) of
Republic Act No. 1939, otherwise known as the Hospital Financing Law,
which took effect on June 22, 1957, the City of Cabanatuan is under
obligation to appropriate by ordinance at least 7% of its annual
general income as contribution for the support of the hospital; that,
accordingly, for the fiscal year 1957-58, the amount of P34,983.12
should have been appropriated by the city council for that purpose
because the city then had an annual general income of P555,700.000 but
only P10,000.00 of said amount was set aside, leaving a deficiency of
P24,983,12. It is this last mentioned amount that is the object of the
action for mandamus against the City Mayor, the Municipal Board and the
City Treasurer of Cabanatuan.

After the filing of the answer by the respondents, the case was
submitted for judgment on the pleadings. Whereupon, the lower court
rendered judgment dismissing the petition on the ground that the
petitioner is not the real party in interest. Insisting that he has the
right to bring the action for mandamus,.the petitioner has appealed
directly to this Court.

The appeal cannot prosper.

Section 7 of the Hospital Financing Law vests upon the Secretary of
Health the supervision and control over all the government hospitals
established and operated under the Act and empowers him to promulgate
rules and regulations to implement its provisions. Pursuant to this
section, the said Secretary has promulgated rules and regulations
Circular No. 262 of the Department of Health, dated July 24, 1958) to
govern hospital financing. It is provided under section 3(c) thereof
that:

“(c) In case of failure on the part of the
province, city and/or municipality concerned to provide for and remit
their respective obligations, as provided for in sections 2 (a)
and 2(2) of the Act, the Secretary of Finance, upon recommendation of
the Secretary of Health and the Auditor General, shall order the
withholding of the amount needed from their respective shares in the
Internal Revenue allotments.”

The above-quoted rule clearly specifies the proper course and the
particular official of the Department of Health who, with the Auditor
General, may pursue the said course whenever any province, city and/or
municipality fails to provide and remit their respective contributions
under the Hospital Financing Law. There is no mention whatsoever that
the chief of a provincial hospital may bring any action against the
province, city and/or municipality concerned in order that the latter
may be made to give their contributions. Under the circumstances of the
present case, the most that the herein petitioner could do is to report
to his superior official the failure of respondents to set aside the
amount that the City of Cabanatuan is obliged to give for the support
of the provincial hospital of which he is the chief. The record does
not show that petitioner had taken this step before coming to court.
There being an appropriate administrative remedy—plain, speedy and
adequate—that could have first been availed of by petitioner, his
action for mandamus is, therefore, premature. Special civil actions
have been held not entertainable if superior administrative officers
could grant relief (Peralta vs. Salcedo, 101 Phil., 452). In
other words, no recourse to the courts can be had until all
administrative remedies have been exhausted (Peralta vs. Salcedo, 101 Phil., 452; supra; Panti vs. The Provincial Board of Catanduanes, 106 Phil., 1093; Booc vs. Osmena, 112 Phil., 333; 58 Off. Gaz., [53] 8788; De la Torre vs. Trinidad, 108 Phil., 635; 58 Off. Gaz., [23] 4398).

In view of the foregoing, the decision of the lower court dismissing
the petition for mandamus is hereby affirmed, without pronouncement as
to costs.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.