Dimaandal v. Commission on Audit
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Zosimo M. Dimaandal, then a Supply Officer III, was designated Acting Assistant Provincial Treasurer for Administration by the Governor of Batangas. He subsequently filed a claim for the salary and Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA) differential between his regular position and the acting position for the entire year of 1993, totaling P61,308.00. The Provincial Auditor disallowed P52,908.00 of this claim, allowing only P8,400.00 for the difference in allowances, reasoning that the power to fill the Assistant Provincial Treasurer position rests with the Secretary of Finance and that the designation was temporary and did not constitute an appointment. Procedural History: Following the Provincial Auditor's disallowance, Governor Mayo's request for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner appealed to the Commission on Audit (COA), which affirmed the Provincial Auditor's decision. The COA ruled that Dimaandal was merely designated to perform additional duties and was not entitled to additional salary, nor the RATA differential, as the designation was not made by the competent authority. The COA further noted that Dimaandal was only officially appointed as Assistant Provincial Treasurer for Administration by the Secretary of Finance on July 8, 1994, and directed him to refund the disallowed amount of P61,308.00. The Petition: Petitioner seeks reversal of the COA decision through a petition for certiorari, arguing that the COA's ruling is contrary to Supreme Court decisions regarding de facto officers, citing Cui et al. v. Ortiz et al. and Menzon v. Petilla. He contends that as a de facto officer, he is entitled to the salary for services actually rendered, and disallowing his compensation would violate his constitutional rights against deprivation of property without due process and impairment of contracts. The petition questions whether an employee designated in an acting capacity is entitled to the salary difference between their regular position and the higher acting position.
Issue(s)
Whether an employee designated in an acting capacity is entitled to the difference in salary between his regular position and the higher position to which he is designated. Whether the petitioner, by performing the duties of Acting Assistant Provincial Treasurer, qualifies as a de facto officer entitled to the salary and benefits of the position.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Commission on Audit's decision affirming the disallowance and ordering the refund of P61,308.00 is upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement to salary and RATA differential for a designation; and the distinction between appointment and designation: The Court held that the petitioner's designation as Acting Assistant Provincial Treasurer for Administration by the Provincial Governor was defective and conferred no right to claim the difference in salaries and allowances. Section 471(a) of RA 7160 (Local Government Code) clearly mandates that an Assistant Treasurer may be appointed by the Secretary of Finance from a list of recommendees. Furthermore, Section 2077 of the Revised Administrative Code, which allows compensation for temporary service, vests the power to order such payment in the President or the officer having the power to fill the position, not the Provincial Governor in this context. The Governor lacked the legal authority to make such a designation or to authorize the payment of additional compensation. The Court reiterated the distinction between an appointment and a designation. An appointment is a selection by the proper authority of an individual to exercise the powers and functions of an office, while a designation merely imposes additional duties upon a person already in service. Designation does not entail payment of additional benefits or grant the right to claim the salary attached to the position, especially when there is no valid appointment. The Court cited the Civil Service Commission's opinion that designation does not entitle the officer to receive the salary of the position in the absence of an appointment. The Court dismissed the petitioner's argument that non-payment of salary differential and RATA would violate his constitutional rights against deprivation of property without due process and impairment of the obligation of contracts. The right to salary is predicated on a lawful appointment or designation. Since the petitioner's designation was without color of authority, the right to the salary or allowance never existed, thus precluding any violation of constitutional rights. The Court noted that the petitioner was subsequently appointed as Assistant Provincial Treasurer for Administration on July 8, 1994, but this permanent appointment could not justify his retention of the excess amount of P61,308.00, which represented salary and RATA claimed for 1993, prior to the valid appointment. On the petitioner's status as a de facto officer: The Court found the petitioner's reliance on the de facto officer doctrine, as applied in cases like Menzon v. Petilla and Cui v. Ortiz, to be misplaced. A de facto officer derives authority from a colorable appointment or election, meaning an appointment that appears valid on its face, even if irregular. In this case, the petitioner's designation was made by an official who lacked the legal authority to do so, thus lacking any color of authority. The Court distinguished the petitioner's situation from Menzon, where an appointment to the vacant position of Vice-Governor was issued, and from Cui, where appointments were made by a mayor still in possession of his right to appoint, pending presidential approval. The petitioner's designation was merely an imposition of additional duties without a valid appointment, and therefore, he could not claim the salary of the higher position.
Main Doctrine
A mere designation to an acting capacity, without a valid appointment issued in accordance with law, does not entitle the designated employee to claim the salary and allowances of the higher position. The appointing authority must possess the legal power to make such designation or appointment.