THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF SULU, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. P. D. ROGERS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

This
action was instituted in the Court of First Instance of the Province of
Sulu by the provincial government of that province, for the purpose of
recovering of the defendant, P. D. Rogers, the sum of P102,920.06, with
interest from November 7, 1921, and with costs. The defendant answered
with a general denial and by way of special defense asserted, first,
that the institution of the action had not been ordered by the
Governor-General of the Philippine Islands in accordance with section
650 of the Administrative Code; and, secondly, that under a special
provision contained under No, 36 of paragraph (h) of Act No.
2997 of the Philippine Legislature (17 Public Laws, p. 23) the Insular
Auditor is alone competent to maintain this action.

Upon
hearing the cause the trial judge, without considering the cause on its
merits, dismissed the complaint on the ground that it did not appear
that the Governor-General had authorized the institution of the action.

The cause of action stated in the complaint is based upon alleged
shortages of the defendant in his accounts as provincial treasurer of
Sulu and as exchange officer of the Sulu Trading System, and in
connection with the complaint certain statements of account made by the
district auditor of the Province of Sulu are exhibited which show prima facie that the shortages referred to in fact exist.

Section 650 of the Administrative Code, in its first paragraph, reads as follows:

“The
Insular Auditor shall, through the proper channels, supervise and
procure the collection and enforcement of all debts and claims, and the
restitution of all funds and property, found to be due the Government
in his settlement and adjustment of accounts; and if any legal
proceeding is necessary to such end, he shall request the
Governor-General to authorize and direct the institution of the same.”

His Honor, the trial judge, seems to have been of the opinion that the
provision quoted creates a condition precedent to the maintenance of
the present action. In this, we think, his Honor was in error. The
provision requiring the Insular Auditor to request the Governor-General
to authorize and direct the institution of any action necessary to the
collection of debts due to the Government is evidently of a distinctly
administrative nature, and the propriety of the provision arises from
the fact that legal proceedings require the intervention of the
Attorney-General, who is of coordinate authority with the Insular
Auditor. The Insular Auditor has no direct control over the
Attorney-General, and any request by the Auditor for action on the part
of the Attorney-General looking towards the enforcement of money
demands must be made through the Office of the Governor-General, who is
the department head of the Insular Auditor. It is by law made the duty
of the Attorney-General to supervise the action of the provincial
fiscals and where an action is to be brought in the name of a
provincial government, as in this case, the machinery is properly set
in motion through the Department of Justice and Attorney-General.

We note that on November 7, 1921, the Acting Insular Auditor advised
the Governor-General that the defendant herein was short in his
accounts as provincial treasurer of Sulu and as exchange officer of the
Sulu Trading System to the extent of P16,766.87, and requested that the
Attorney-General be authorized and directed to institute the necessary
legal proceedings for the collection of said amount, with interest. The
requested authority was given (Exhibit D-1). Later the shortage of the
defendant in the capacities stated appears to have been found to be
much greater than had been supposed, and the larger amount was claimed
in the complaint, without it appearing that any further authorization
from the Governor-General was obtained.

The point we
consider to be immaterial, and the action in our opinion can be
maintained without further proof of authorization by the
Governor-General. If any person should at any time consider himself to
be improperly harassed by the institution of an unauthorized action,
the Governor-General would undoubtedly have authority, if the action
were unauthorized, to direct the proceedings to be dismissed, and this,
we think, is the proper administrative remedy under section 650 of the
Administrative Code. It is exceedingly embarrassing to the
administration of justice to multiply the obstacles to the maintenance
of actions of any sort, and we hold that there was no intention on the
part of the Legislature to make proof of authorization by the
Governor-General a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action
instituted by or under the authority of the Bureau of Justice.

There is nothing in the last paragraph of No. 36, paragraph (h)
of Act No. 2997 which in any way changes these considerations. It is
there declared that the Insular Auditor shall liquidate the commercial
enterprises and related financial affairs of the Provincial Government
of Sulu and, among other things, he is required “to enforce collection
of amounts due that provincial government.” Of course the authority to
enforce collection of these claims must be understood to impose upon
the Insular Auditor the duty to proceed according to law along the
ordinary channels of action, that is, through the Bureau of Justice.

The action of the trial judge in dismissing the complaint is reversed,
and the cause will be remanded to the court of origin in order that the
case may be determined upon its merits. No special pronouncement will
be made as to costs. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Malcolm, Ostrand, and Johns, JJ., concur.