FELIZARDO C. MAÑGONON, ETC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of
Manila dismissing plaintiff’s complaint for a sum of money against the
defendants on the ground that the same was filed beyond the period
prescribed in section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 327.

It appears that on November 3, 1948, E. S. Baltao & Co., Inc.,
and the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Director of
Public Works, entered into a contract whereby the former undertook to
construct the Alcala Revetment Project in the province of Pangasinan.
As the contract was rescinded by the Republic of the Philippines, the
contractor, E. S. Baltao and Co., Inc., filed a claim with the Director
of Public Works to recover the amount of P64,205.38, representing
expenses allegedly incurred by the former for labor and materials prior
to the rescission of the contract.

After due investigation of the claim, the Director of Public Works
recommended to the Auditor General that only P16,255.37 of the amount
asked be paid in settlement of the contractor’s demand. The Auditor
General, in a decision dated December 21, 1956, awarded only F15,785.10
to the claimant. The said decision was. received by the contractor’s
representative on December 28, 1956.

On January 7, 1957, E. S. Baltao & Co., Inc. assigned to
plaintiff Felizardo C. Mafigonon, the contractor’s field engineer, the
entire amount awarded the former by the Auditor General. The said
assignment was approved by the Secretary of Public Works and
Communications and the same was made the basis for the issuance of an
invoice for the said amount.

Subsequently, Mangonon through counsel wrote the Secretary of Public
Works and Communications a letter for reconsideration claiming further
sums of money but the Auditor General denied the same on the ground
that his decision of December 21, 1956 had already become final
pursuant to section 2 of C. A. 327. Several letters for reconsideration
were made but all were denied by the Auditor General on the ground
stated above.

On March 31, 1958, around 15 months after the Auditor General
rendered his decision, Mangonon filed the complaint in this case for
recovery of various sums aggregating P53,425.29, allegedly representing
the difference of the amount of the claim of E. S. Baltao & Co.,
Inc. with the Director of Public Works and the amount approved by the
Auditor-General. The herein defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, on the ground that the action has become barred since no
appeal was taken from the Auditor General’s decision within thirty days
from receipt of said decision, as provided in section 2 of C. A. 327,
and therefore the lower court has no jurisdiction to try the case.

On August 1, 1958, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss,
stating that the decision of the Auditor General of December 21, 1956
had already become final in accordance with section 2 of C. A. 327 and
that the plaintiff is forever barred to file the present action against
the defendants.

Unsatisfied with the aforesaid resolution of the court below, the
plaintiff has appealed to this court, claiming that the court below
erred in holding that the instant action has been barred by the statute
of limitations, and in dismissing the complaint.

Appellant through counsel maintains that his action is for
unliquidated claims while the power of the Auditor General to settle
accounts or claims against the government embraces only liquidated
claims. This view is conceded, but the cases cited by appellant tends
to show that the claim of E. S. Baltao & Co., Inc. filed with the
Director of Public Works was in the nature of a liquidated claim. In
the case of Cia General de Tabacos vs. French, et al., 39 Phil., 34,
44, this Court, in making a distinction between moneyed claims or
accounts over which accounting officers, like the Auditor General, have
jurisdiction and those over which they have no authority, quoted from
the case of Dennis vs. United States (20 Ct. Cls. R, 119), as follows:

“Technically, all claims for money, due on
contracts, where the exact amount payable is not thereby fixed, as in
the case of goods purchased or work done without an agreed price, are
claims for unliquidated damages. But x x x their settlement rarely
requires anything more than the ordinary processes of accounting1, the
prices being readily determined by the vouchers and reports of the
public officers incurring the expense, or by other means within the
reach of the accounting officers, who will properly take jurisdiction
and pass upon such claims. x x x But claims for unliquidated damages
founded on neglect or breach of obligations contrary to the terms of a
contract, and not necessarily arising therefrom, are of quite a
different class. x x x.”

In the case at bar, it is admitted that the claim of E. S. Baltao
& Co., Inc. filed with the Director of Public Works on December 9,
1949, and passed upon and approved by the Auditor General for
P15,785.10, represented the total investment or expense E. S. Baltao
& Co., Inc. had allegedly incurred in carrying out the terms of the contract before its rescission.
It is a money claim based on contract, as contradistinguished from a
claim founded on neglect or breach of obligations contrary to the terms
, of the contract and not necessarily arising therefrom. Its settlement
and verification could be done by simple arithmetical processes, the
prices and other expenses incurred in accordance with the contract
being readily determined by the vouchers and receipts presented by the
claimant. What is more, the parties to the contract had agreed that in
case of rescission, the Director of Public Works will ascertain and fix
the value of the work completed by the contractor and not paid for
by the Government and of all usable materials on the line of the work
taken over by the Government at the time of said rescission.”

The decision of the Auditor General awarding only the sum of
P15,785.10 to E. S. Baltao & Co., Inc. was received by said
contractor on December 28, 1956. Instead of moving for a
reconsideration of said decision of the Auditor General or of
interposing an appeal therefrom in accordance with section 2 of C. A.
327, E. S. Baltao & Co., Inc. expressed its conformity thereto by
assigning the full amount of P15,785.10 in favor of herein
plaintiff-appellant in a deed of assignment, dated January 7, 1957.
This could be gathered from the following pertinent paragraph of the
3rd indorsement of the Auditor General, dated October 18, 1957:

“Furthermore, it seems that E. S. Baltao & Co.,
Inc. has already manifested its conformity with our decision when it
assigned to Mr. Mangonon the sum of Fifteen Thousand Seven Hundred
Eighty Five & 10/100 (P15,785.10) Pesos representing the amount due
the E. S. Baltao & Co., Inc. from the Bureau of Public Works as
payment of our claim from said Bureau in connection with the
construction of the Alcala Revetment River Control Project (1st par.,
Deed of Assignment, executed Jan. 7, 1957).”

The said assignment was approved by the Secretary of Public Works
and Communications and same made the basis for the issuance of an
invoice for the approved amount. The said 3rd indorsement of the
Auditor General, dated October 18, 1957, appears in the record of this
case as one of the annexes submitted by appellant’s counsel. The
failure of E. S. Baltao & Co., Inc., or its agent and assignee, the
herein appellant, to appeal from the decision of the Auditor General
within 30 days as required by the law, tends strongly to support that
conformity which E. S. Baltao & Co., Inc. had given to the
settlement of his whole claim in the fixed sum of P15,785.10. Upon this
other consideration, the final decision of the Auditor’ General has
become a legal bar to the present action.

WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against plaintiff-appellant.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Baustista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera and Dizon, JJ., concur.