2013 (Political Law) Bar Exam Questions: Multiple Choice Question 12

[Answer/discuss the question below. Or see Political Law Instructions; Political Law Essay Questions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12; Political Law Multiple Choice Questions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 1113, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. See also 2013 Bar Exam: Information, Discussions, Tips, Questions and Results]

XII. Mr. Sinco sued the government for damages. After trial, the court ruled in hi favor and awarded damages amounting to P50 million against the government. To satisfy the judgment against the government, which valid option is available to Mr. Sinco? (1%)

(A) Garnish the government funds deposited at the Land Bank.

(B) File a claim with the Commission on Audit (COA) pursuant to Commonwealth Act 327, as amended by Presidential Decree 1445.

(C) Make representations with the Congress to appropriated the amount to satisfy the judgment.

(D) FIle a petition for mandamus in court to compel Congress to appripriate P50 million to satisfy the judgment.

(E) Proceed to execute the judgment as provided by the Rules of Court because the State allowed itself to be sued.


  1. B. File claim with COA as provided for under the said laws.

    The State may have allowed itself to be sued but it does not automatically admit any liability if a judgment is rendered against it. The government is not allowed to disburse public fund unles properly and duly appropriated by the Congress.

  2. I think the right answer is D because Mr. Sinco is seeking to enforce a monetary judgment claim against the government and the public fund to satisfy the same must be appropriated for by the Congress.

    As regards B, it is done only for the purpose of satisfying the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement before filing a suit against the government.

    As regards E, when the State allows itself to be sued, it admits of liability up to rendition of judgment only and said judgment cannot be executed against it unless a public fund has been previously appropriated for the same purpose.

  3. I answered C as to other letters I agree with Lex Aeterna, except as to D kasi hindi naman ito ministerial duty ng congress to warrant mandamus. Although meron case that allowed mandamus to satisfy a judgment it was against an LGU kaya nagkaron ako ng dilemma as to choosing D, medyo may naalala lang din ako sa law school na namention during class when someone asked na kawawa naman yung judgment obligee dahil wala syang recourse, and the professor answered eh di he should lobby for its appropriation in congress so in short he should make some representation. i dont know kung tama pagka alala ko or i was just imagining things, hehe

  4. Na-discuss rin ng Constitutional law professor ko na if you have a judgment claim against the government, you can lobby your claim with any member of the Congress to make appropriation to satisfy the same. Darn me, lobbying was the one in my mind and not an inkling that representation also means lobbying rin pala. Haist, disappointed na ako.

  5. i answered D in this one. I remembered a discussion by my prof that this is one of the exception that the congress can be compelled by mandamus. I think it was based on the said case discussed by anon and lex aeterna.

  6. The primary jurisdiction to examine, audit and settle all claims of any sort due from the Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities pertains to the Commission on Audit (COA) pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1445 (Government Auditing Code of the Philippines). UP v Dizon, Aug 2012

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *