Noromor v. Municipality of Oras
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Ceferino Noromor was appointed to the police force of Oras, Samar, on August 14, 1950. On December 11, 1950, he was charged with frustrated murder, leading to his suspension from office on January 16, 1951, and the cessation of his salary payments. Procedural History: Noromor was found guilty of less serious physical injuries by the trial court but was acquitted on appeal by the Court of Appeals on July 16, 1954. He was reinstated to his position on September 1, 1954. Subsequently, Noromor demanded payment of his salary during his suspension (January 16, 1951, to August 31, 1954), totaling P1,957.50. The municipal treasurer endorsed the claim, but payment could not be effected due to a lack of appropriation. Noromor then filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Samar. The Appeal: The respondents argued that Noromor was reappointed, not reinstated, and that his claim for salary during suspension was invalid because he was a civil service non-eligible, and Republic Act No. 557, which he invoked, allegedly only applied to civil service eligibles. The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of Noromor, ordering the payment of his salary and directing the municipal board to appropriate the necessary funds. The respondents appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether a municipal policeman who is acquitted of criminal charges is entitled to payment of his salary during the period of his suspension, notwithstanding his status as a civil service non-eligible. Whether Republic Act No. 557, specifically Section 4 thereof, applies to civil service non-eligible policemen seeking salary during suspension upon acquittal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance, ordering the respondents to pay petitioner Ceferino Noromor the amount of P1,957.50, representing his salary during his suspension. The municipal board was further ordered to convene a special session to appropriate the said amount for payment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of entitlement to salary during suspension despite non-eligibility: The Court held that a member of the municipal police force suspended due to criminal charges is entitled to full salary payment upon acquittal, as mandated by Section 4 of Republic Act No. 557. The Court emphasized that the question of eligibility is distinct from the right to salary during an illegal suspension. Had Noromor not been suspended, he would have continued in office and received his salary, and his eligibility status was not a bar to this claim, especially since it was not raised at the time of his appointment. The law, as quoted, does not differentiate between eligible and non-eligible policemen concerning salary during suspension upon acquittal, and any doubt should be resolved in favor of the petitioner. On the applicability of Republic Act No. 557 to non-eligibles: The Court clarified that while Republic Act No. 557 might primarily protect civil service eligibles in terms of reinstatement or reappointment, its provision regarding salary payment during suspension upon acquittal does not make such a distinction. The core of the claim was for salary lost due to suspension, not for reinstatement itself. The Court found that the language of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 557 is clear and unmistakable, stating that "in case of acquittal, the accused shall be entitled to payment of the entire salary he failed to receive during his suspension." This provision is mandatory and fully supports Noromor's claim, regardless of his civil service eligibility. The Court also addressed the argument that non-eligibles can only serve for three months, finding it untenable as Noromor's appointment had no time limitation and was apparently accepted by the Civil Service Commissioner.
Main Doctrine
Section 4 of Republic Act No. 557 mandates that a member of the provincial guards, city police, or municipal police who is suspended pending the final decision of a case filed against them, and is subsequently acquitted, shall be entitled to the payment of the entire salary they failed to receive during their suspension. This entitlement applies irrespective of the individual's civil service eligibility, as the law does not distinguish between eligible and non-eligible personnel for the purpose of salary during suspension upon acquittal.