/---!e-library! 6.

0 Philippines Copyright © 2000 by Sony Valdez---\

[1956V92] BRAULIO QUIMSON, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ROMAN OZAETA, ET AL., defendants-

MONTEMAYOR, J.:

This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City, dismissing plaintiff's
complaint for the recovery of accrued salaries, first taken to the Court of Appeals, and later certified to
us for the reason that said appeal involved only questions of law. The facts are simple and clear, and as
found by the trial court may be briefly stated as follows:

The Rural Progress Administration (later referred to as Administration) is a public corporation created
for the purpose of acquiring landed estates through purchase, expropriation or lease, and later sub-
letting or sub-leasing the same to tenants or occupants. The officials and employees of the
Administration may be considered as civil service employees embraced in the classified service.
Sometime in 1947, one Aurelio R. Peña, then comptroller of the Administration and performing duties of
auditor in representation of the Auditor General recommended to the Board of Directors of the
Administration that for purposes of economy municipal treasurers be appointed agent-collectors of the
Administration, and this recommendation was adopted by the Board of Director. Thereafter, Faustino
Aguilar, then manager of the Administration, prepared the appointment for the post of agent- collector
on a part-time basis in favor of plaintiff-appellant Braulio Quimson, with compensation of P720 per
annum, the appointment to take effect upon assumption of duty. At the time, Quimson was deputy
provincial treasurer and municipal treasurer of Caloocan, Rizal. Defendant-appellee Roman Ozaeta who
by reason of his office of Secretary of Justice was acting as Chairman of the Board of Directors, signed
the appointment and forwarded the papers to the President through the Secretary of Finance for
approval. Without waiting for the said approval Quimson assumed his position on May 6, 1948 and
rendered service as agent-collector of the Administration until October 21, 1949, inclusive, when he was
informed that because of the disapproval of his appointment, his services were considered terminated.
There were several objections to his appointment, among them that of the Auditor General on the
ground that since Quimson was deputy provincial treasurer and municipal treasurer of Caloocan, his
additional compensation as agent-collector would contravene the Constitutional prohibition against
double compensation. The Commissioner of Civil Service said that he would offer no objection to the
additional compensation of Quimson as agent-collector provided it was authorized in a special provision
exempting the case from the inhibition against the payment of extra compensation in accordance with
section 259 of the Revised Administrative Code. In this connection, it may be stated that this section of
the Administrative Code provides that in the absence of special provision, no officer or employee in any
branch of the Government service shall receive additional compensation on account of the discharge of
duties pertaining to another or to the performance of public service of whatever nature. Faustino
Aguilar as manager of the Administration asked for the reconsideration of the ruling of the Auditor
General, alleging that the appointment of the plaintiff was for reasons of economy and efficiency, but
the Auditor General denied the request stating that reasons of economy and efficiency are not valid
grounds for evading the constitutional prohibition against additional compensation in the absence of a
law specifically authorizing such compensation. So, the services of Quimson as agent-collector of the
Administration were terminated. But R. Gonzales Lloret, then manager of the Administration on October
18, 1949, inquired from the auditor of the Administration whether Quimson could be paid for the period
of actual service rendered by him from May 10, 1948, and the said auditor gave the opinion that it could
not be done for the reason that in his opinion the appointment extended to Quimson was clearly illegal
and the Administration may not be obliged to pay him for the services rendered since it was a violation
of section 3, Article XII, of the Constitution prohibiting double compensation. At the same time he
expressed the opinion that under section 691 of the Revised Administrative Code the appointing official
who made the illegal appointment should be made liable for the payment of salary of the appointee,
and consequently, plaintiff should claim his salary for services rendered against said appointing officer. It
is highly possible that this opinion was what induced and prompted Quimson to file the present case
against Roman Ozaeta who, as Chairman of the Board, signed his appointment, and the members of the
said Board, namely: Faustino Aguilar, Vicente Fragante, Roman Fernandez and Pedro Magsalin. The
action was initiated in the Justice of the Peace Court which dismissed the complaint. On appeal to the
Court of First Instance of Quezon City, as already stated, the complaint was also dismissed.

For purposes of reference we are reproducing section 691 of the Revised Administrative Code, to wit:

"SEC. 691. Payment of person employed contrary to law. - Liability of chief of office. - No person
employed in the classified service contrary to law or in violation of the civil service rules shall be entitled
to receive pay from the Government; but the chief of the bureau or office responsible for such unlawful
employment shall be personally liable for the pay that would have accrued had the employment been
lawful, and the disbursing officer shall make payment to the employee of such amount from the salary
of the officers so liable."

In our opinion, the present appeal can be resolved without much difficulty. Section 691 of the
Administrative Code above reproduced refers and applies to unlawful employment and not to unlawful
compensation. The appointment or employment of plaintiff-appellant Quimson as agent-collector was
not in itself unlawful because there is no incompatibility between said appointment and his employment
as deputy provincial treasurer and municipal treasurer. In fact, he was appointed agent-collector by
reason of his office, being a municipal treasurer. There is no legal objection to a government official
occupying two government offices and performing the functions of both as long as there is no
incompatibility. Clerks of court are sometimes appointed or designated as provincial sheriffs. Municipal
Treasurers like plaintiff are often appointed and designated as deputy provincial treasurer. The
Department Secretaries are often designated to act as Chairman or members of Board of Directors of
government corporations. The objection or prohibition refers to double compensation and not to
double appointments and performance of functions of more than one office.

According to law, under certain circumstances, the President may authorize double compensation in
some cases, such as government officials acting as members with compensation in government
examining boards like the bar examinations, or department secretaries acting as members of Board of
Directors of government corporations, and in such cases the prohibition against double compensation is
not observed. This undoubtedly, was the reason why the appointment of Quimson had to be coursed
through different offices like the Department of Finance, the Civil Service Commission, and the Office of
the Auditor General to the President for approval. If the President approves the double compensation,
well and good. The appointee whose appointment may then be regarded as valid from the beginning
could receive extra compensation. If it is disapproved, then the appointment will have to be withdrawn
or cancelled, unless of course, the appointee was willing to serve without compensation, in which case
there could be no valid objection. This is another proof that the appointment of Quimson was not illegal
or unlawful. It was only the double compensation that was subject to objection. The trouble was that
plaintiff herein assumed office without waiting for the result of the action to be taken upon his
appointment and compensation by the President and the different offices which the appointment had
to go through.

Furthermore, Quimson would appear to have assumed office without notifying the official who
appointed him, namely, Roman Ozaeta. Plaintiff, therefore, took the risk or hazard of not being paid for
any service that he may render in the meantime. His counsel now contends that the appointing official
should have known that double compensation was prohibited by law and therefore he should not have
appointed Quimson as agent-collector. That is seemingly a plausible stand. But it should be borne in
mind that there are exceptions to the prohibition; that the very comptroller of the Administration,
representing the Auditor General, recommended the appointment of municipal treasurers, like the
plaintiff, as agent-collectors, and so defendant Ozaeta and the other members of the Board of Directors
may have believed that the Chief Executive might approve plaintiff's appointment. Besides, it may also
be said that Quimson himself, a Deputy Provincial Treasurer and Municipal Treasurer, a financial officer
expected to be tersed in government disbursements and payments of salaries and compensation should
have also known and undoubtedly he knew about that prohibition against double compensation. He
should have known that his appointment had to go over or through several obstacles and hazards, but
he took the risk and began serving as agent-collector before his appointment was approved. We are
afraid that he has no one to blame but himself.
Finding no reversible error in the decision appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L. and
Endencia, JJ., concur.

\---!e-library! 6.0 Philippines Copyright © 2000 by Sony Valdez---/

([1956V92] BRAULIO QUIMSON, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ROMAN OZAETA, ET AL., defendants-appellees.,