G.R. No. 30888 , September 28, 1929
VIUDA E HIJOS DE CRISPULO ZAMORA, petitioner, vs. BEN F. WRIGHT and F. SEGADO, as Insular Auditor and Purchasing Agent, respectively, of the Government of the Philippine Islands, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner, a commercial partnership, entered into a contract with the government through the Purchasing Agent to supply “cross-arms, cast iron, complete with bolts and nuts to be made as per sample submitted to the Director of Posts.” The initial contract was for 8,200 cross-arms. A subsequent order doubled the quantity, making a total of 16,400 cross-arms. The petitioner delivered what it understood to be 16,400 complete cross-arms, interpreting “cross-arm” to mean a single piece (one of the two arms that extend from a telegraph pole). The government, through the Insular Auditor, contended that the contract called for 32,800 pieces, interpreting “cross-arm” as a complete set consisting of two pieces (forming both arms extending from the pole). The Insular Auditor refused to countersign the final payment warrants for the deliveries, insisting on the delivery of the additional pieces. The petitioner filed a petition for mandamus to compel the Insular Auditor to countersign the warrants.

ISSUE

Whether the writ of mandamus should be issued to compel the Insular Auditor to countersign the payment warrants for the delivered cross-arms, based on the petitioner’s interpretation of the contract.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition for mandamus. The writ of mandamus is a remedy granted only when the petitioner’s right is clear, definite, and certain. In this case, the petitioner’s legal right to payment under its interpretation of the contract was not clear and was seriously doubtful. The Court found that the contract, when considered together with the sample submitted (which consisted of two identical pieces intended to be bolted to a pole to form a complete cross-arm extending in both directions), obligated the petitioner to supply complete cross-arms, each consisting of two pieces. Therefore, the Insular Auditor was correct in refusing to countersign the warrants for payment based on the delivery of only half the required number of pieces. The petitioner failed to establish a clear legal right to the writ.