Case Digest (G.R. No. L-8321)
Facts:
Quimson v. Ozaeta, G.R. No. L-8321, March 26, 1956, the Supreme Court En Banc, Montemayor, J., writing for the Court.
Plaintiff-appellant Braulio Quimson sued defendants-appellees including Boman (Roman) Ozaeta and other members of the Board of Directors of the Rural Progress Administration (the Administration) to recover accrued salaries allegedly due for services rendered as agent-collector. The Administration was a public corporation tasked with acquiring and subletting land; its officials and employees were considered part of the classified civil service.
In 1947 the Administration’s comptroller (acting in representation of the Auditor General) recommended that municipal treasurers be appointed agent-collectors for the Administration for reasons of economy. Thereafter, Faustino Aguilar, then manager, prepared a part‑time appointment of Quimson as agent-collector with compensation of P720 per annum, effective upon assumption of duty. The appointment was signed by defendant Ozaeta as acting Chairman and forwarded for approval to the President through the Secretary of Finance. Without awaiting presidential approval or the final clearances from other offices, Quimson assumed the duties on May 6, 1948 and served until October 21, 1949, when he was informed his services were terminated because his appointment had been disapproved.
Objections to Quimson’s compensation came from several quarters. The Auditor General contended that additional pay to Quimson—who was concurrently deputy provincial treasurer and municipal treasurer of Caloocan—would contravene the constitutional prohibition against double compensation (referred to in the decision as section 3, Article XII of the Constitution). The Civil Service Commissioner indicated no objection provided a special provision authorizing extra compensation (citing Sec. 259, Revised Administrative Code) was present. The Auditor General refused to accept reasons of economy as a valid ground to evade the constitutional prohibition and the appointment was therefore disapproved; the Administration’s auditor also advised that the Administration was not obliged to pay because the appointment involved illegal compensation and that under Sec. 691, Revised Administrative Code the appointing official might be personally liable if the employment itself were unlawful.
Quimson filed suit initially in the Justi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether plaintiff Quimson is entitled to recover the salaries for services rendered as agent-collector despite the disapproval of his appointment.
- Whether Section 691, Revised Administrative Code makes the appointing officers personally liable to pay salaries where the alleged illegality concerns prohibited double compensation rather...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)