INOCENTES L. FERNANDEZ, PETITIONER, VS. MANUEL S. ALBA, MINISTER OF THE BUDGET, RESPONDENT.

Fernandez versus Alba

The Case

This is Fernandez versus Alba, a petition for mandamus brought by a retired municipal judge against the Minister of the Budget. The petitioner asks the Supreme Court to compel the Minister to release enough money to pay the increase in his monthly retirement annuity that he claims is due him under Republic Act Number 6031, the law that raised the salaries of municipal judges. The case matters because it draws the line between a law that merely authorizes an appropriation and a law that actually makes one, and it holds that the release of public funds is a matter of executive discretion that mandamus cannot control.

Procedural History

This was an original action in the Supreme Court. The petitioner did not come up from a trial court or from the Court of Appeals. Instead, he filed the petition for mandamus directly with the Supreme Court against the Minister of the Budget, after a long exchange of letters in which he asked the President, the Chief Justice, and the Budget Commission to adjust his pension, and the Budget Commission repeatedly refused. The case was submitted on the petition and the comment of the Solicitor General, and the Court decided it in November 1983.

Facts

The petitioner was the municipal judge of Dumalinao, Zamboanga del Sur. He was receiving a monthly salary of 550 pesos under Republic Act Number 4533. On the fourth of August 1969, Republic Act Number 6031 was approved. It raised the salaries of municipal judges, and under its schedule a judge in a municipality of the third, fourth, or fifth class would receive 9,600 pesos a year, or 800 pesos a month. The petitioner's salary was supposed to rise from 550 pesos to 800 pesos a month. But the law was not yet implemented.

On the thirty-first of August 1969, the petitioner retired. Because the new law had not been implemented, he received a five-year lump sum retirement gratuity computed at the old rate of 550 pesos a month under Republic Act Number 4533. Republic Act Number 6031 was implemented only on the first of June 1971, two years after his retirement. In September 1974, five years after he retired, he began receiving a monthly retirement gratuity of 550 pesos.

The petitioner then pressed his claim. The Secretary of Justice, and later the Chief Justice, asked the Budget Commissioner to adjust the benefits of eighty-four municipal judges who had retired after the enactment but before the implementation of Republic Act Number 6031. The Budget Commissioner refused, reasoning that the law was only an enabling act that authorized an appropriation but made none, so there was nothing to program and allot. The petitioner wrote to the President in May 1975, and again in July 1979, insisting that the law was already effective when he retired and that it would be unjust to keep him at the old rate. The Minister of the Budget maintained his refusal. Hence the petition.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the benefits provided under Republic Act Number 6031, which was enacted during his tenure but implemented only after his retirement.
• Whether or not mandamus will lie to compel the Minister of the Budget to release the funds needed to pay the increase in the petitioner's monthly annuity.

Applicable Provisions

Section 6 of Republic Act Number 6031 provides:

Such sums as may be necessary to provide for the salary authorized and salaries for positions created under this Act are hereby authorized to be appropriated out of any funds in the National Treasury not otherwise appropriated. Thereafter, such sums shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act.

This is the provision on which the whole case turns, because the Court reads it as a mere authorization to appropriate, not an actual appropriation of funds.

Section 5 of Republic Act Number 6031, amending Section 82 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, provides the salary schedule:

In municipalities of the third class, fourth class and fifth class, nine thousand six hundred pesos each.

This is the higher rate the petitioner invokes, the rate that would have raised his monthly salary to 800 pesos.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of Republic Act Number 6031. The Court acknowledged his sad plight, old and sickly and living on a meager pension in a time of economic hardship, but held that his claim must yield to the overriding economic consideration of the availability of funds. The reason is that Republic Act Number 6031 did not actually appropriate the money. Section 6 merely authorized that such sums as may be necessary be appropriated out of funds in the National Treasury not otherwise appropriated. There being no appropriation, there was nothing to pay out.

On the second issue, the Court held that mandamus will not lie. The release and allocation of funds entail the exercise of judgment and discretion, and such discretion cannot be controlled by mandamus. The Court relied on its earlier ruling in Genato versus Sy-Changco, where it said that an appropriation is per se nothing more than a legislative authorization, and that the authorization requires implementation through allocation of funds. The Court also cited Board of Administrators of the Philippine Veterans Affairs versus Agcaoili, where it refused to order payment of a valid claim precisely because the Government had not provided the necessary funds. The proper recourse, the Court said, is for the petitioner and all retirees similarly situated to appeal to the law-making authority for the appropriation of the necessary funds.

Doctrine

A law that states that such sums as may be necessary are authorized to be appropriated out of any funds in the National Treasury not otherwise appropriated is an enabling act. It authorizes an appropriation but does not make one. Until the legislature actually appropriates the funds, no right to payment arises that a court can enforce.

The allocation and release of public funds involve the exercise of judgment and discretion by the executive, and that discretion cannot be controlled by mandamus. Mandamus lies to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, not to direct the exercise of discretion.

Where a salary increase is enacted during a judge's tenure but implemented only after his retirement, and no funds were appropriated for the intervening period, the retiree cannot compel payment of the differential in his annuity, terminal leave, or retirement gratuity. The availability of funds is an overriding consideration.

Disposition

The petition for mandamus was dismissed, without costs. The Minister of the Budget prevailed.

Remember This

Memorize the line: an enabling act that merely authorizes an appropriation is not an appropriation, and the release of funds is a discretionary act that mandamus cannot control. Examiners use this case on the requisites of mandamus, on the distinction between authorization and appropriation, and on the fiscal autonomy and retirement benefits of judges.