Page 1 of 3

G.R. No. 122197 June 26, 1998 1. That Section 2077 of the Revised
Administrative Code is applicable in
ZOSIMO M. DIMAANDAL, petitioner, the instant case as the same provides
vs. that the Governor General or the
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondent. officer having the power to fill-up a
temporary absence or disability in
the provincial office has the power to
order or authorize payment of
compensation to any government
MARTINEZ, J.: officer or employee designated or
appointed temporarily to fill the
place;
This petition for certiorari seeks the reversal of the
decision of the Commission on Audit dated
September 7, 1995, 1 the dispositive portion of which 2. That the budget containing an
reads, to wit: appropriation for the position of
Assistant Provincial Treasurer for
Administration was already approved
Foregoing premises considered, the
by the Provincial Board; and
instant appeal cannot be given due
course. Accordingly, the disallowance
in question in the total amount of 3. That Mr. Dimaandal at the time of
P52,908.00 is hereby affirmed. his designation as Acting Provincial
Considering that the claim for the Treasurer for Administration was no
RATA differential in the amount of longer performing the duties and
P8,400.00 is devoid of any legal functions of Supply Officer III.
basis, the same is also disallowed.
Hence, appellant Zosimo M. The Provincial Auditor, however, denied the request
Dimaandal is hereby directed to for reconsideration. Appellant was required to refund
refund the salary and RATA the amount of P52,908.00 which was disallowed.
differential in the amount of
P61,308.00 he had received from the
Petitioner appealed to the respondent Commission on
Provincial Government of Batangas. 2
Audit which sustained the stand of the Provincial
Auditor of Batangas as valid and proper. The
The undisputed facts: respondent Commission was of the view that the
petitioner was merely designated as an Assistant
On November 23, 1992, petitioner Zosimo M. Provincial Treasurer for Administration in addition to
Dimaandal, then holding the position of Supply his regular duties. As such, he is not entitled to
Officer III, was designated Acting Assistant Provincial receive an additional salary. The Commission further
Treasurer for Administration by then Governor opined that petitioner was likewise not entitled to
Vicente A. Mayo of Batangas. Pursuant to the receive the difference in RATA provided for under the
designation, petitioner filed a claim for the difference Local Budget Circular issued by the Department of
in salary and Representation and Transportation Budget and Management considering that the party
Allowance (RATA) of Assistant Provincial Treasurer designating him to such position is not the "duly
and Supply Officer III for the whole year of 1993 in competent authority," provided for under Section 471
the total amount of P61,308.00. of the Local Government Code. Notably, petitioner
was appointed as Assistant Provincial Treasurer for
Administration by the Secretary of Finance only on
However, the Provincial Auditor disallowed in audit
July 8, 1994.
P52,908.00 of the claim. What was allowed was only
the amount of P8,400.00 which corresponds to the
difference in the allowances attached to the Thus, the respondent Commission not only affirmed
designation and the position occupied by the the disallowance of the amount of P52,908.00 but
appellant. The disallowances was premised on the likewise disallowed the claim for the RATA differential
following reasons: in the amount of P8,400.00, for being devoid of any
legal basis. Petitioner was, therefore, directed to
refund the salary and RATA differential in the amount
1. The provisions of Section 2077 of
of P61,308.00.
the Revised Administrative Code is
not applicable in the instant case as
the power to fill the position of Hence, this petition.
Assistant Provincial Treasurer rests
on the Secretary of Finance. The issue here is whether or not an employee who is
designated in an acting capacity is entitled to the
2. The designation is temporary in difference in salary between his regular position and
nature and does not amount to the the higher position to which he is designated.
issuance of an appointment as could
entitle the designee to receive the Petitioner avers that the respondent Commission's
salary of the position to which he is decision is "probably not in accordance with
designated (Opinion of the Director, applicable decisions of the Supreme Court." 3 He cites
Office for Legal Affairs, Civil Service the cases of Cui, et. al. vs. Ortiz, et. al., 4 April 29,
Commission dated January 25, 1960; and, Menzon vs. Petilla, May 20, 1991, 5 which
1994). laid down the rule that de facto officers are entitled to
salary for services actually rendered. Petitioner
On August 3, 1994, Governor Mayo wrote to the contends that he may be considered as a de
Provincial Auditor requesting reconsideration of the facto officer by reason of services rendered in favor of
subject disallowance, interposing the following the Province of Batangas. He then posits the view that
reasons: to disallow his compensation and in the process allow
the Province of Batangas to keep and enjoy the
 Page 2 of 3

benefits derived from his services actually rendered Undoubtedly, the aforecited laws do not authorize the
would be tantamount to deprivation of property Provincial Governor to appoint nor even designate one
without due process of law, and impairment of temporarily in cases of temporary absence or
obligation of contracts duly enshrined in the disability or a vacancy in a provincial office. That
Constitution. power resides in the President of the Philippines or
the Secretary of Finance.
On the other hand, the respondent Commission,
through the Office of the Solicitor General, maintains Necessarily, petitioner's designation as Assistant
that decisions cited by petitioner do not find Provincial Treasurer for Administration by Governor
application in petitioner's case. In the case of Menzon, Mayo Being defective, confers no right on the part of
what was extended was an appointment to the vacant petitioner to claim the difference in the salaries and
position of Vice-Governor. Here, what was extended to allowances attached to the position occupied by him.
petitioner was not appointment but a mere
designation. Thus, the nature of petitioner's Moreover, what was extended to petitioner by
designation and in the absence of authority of the Governor Mayo was merely a designation not an
Governor to authorize the payment of the additional appointment. The respondent Commission clearly
salary and RATA without the appropriate resolution pointed out the difference between an appointment
from the Sangguniang Panlalawigan does not make and designation, thus:
the ruling on de facto officers applicable in this case.
There is a great difference between
We find the petition to be without merit. an appointment and designation.
While an appointment is the selection
We are not persuaded by petitioner's insistence that by the proper authority of an
he could still claim the salary and RATA differential individual who is to exercise the
because he actually performed the functions powers and functions of a given
pertaining to the office of Acting Assistant Provincial office, designation merely connotes
Treasurer and, therefore, entitled to the salary and an imposition of additional duties,
benefits attached to it despite the fact that the usually by law, upon a person
Governor of Batangas had no authority to designate already in the public service by virtue
him to the said position. of an earlier appointment (Santiago
vs. COA, 199 SCRA 125).
The law applicable is Section 471(a) of RA 7160
otherwise known as the Local Government Code Designation is mere imposition of
which mandates that: new or additional duties on the
officer or employee to be performed
Sec. 471. Assistant Treasurers. — (a) by him in a special manner. It does
An Assistant treasurer may be not entail payment of additional
appointed by the Secretary of benefits or grant upon the person so
Finance from a list of at least three designated the right to claim the
(3) ranking eligible recommendees of salary attached to the position (COA
the governor or mayor, subject to Decision NO. 95-087 dated February
civil service law, rules and 2, 1995). As such, there being no
regulations. appointment issued, designation
does not entitle the officer designated
to receive the salary of the position.
xxx xxx xxx For the legal basis of an employee's
right to claim the attached thereto is
In fact, the appointing officer is authorized by law to a duly issued and approved
order the payment of compensation to any appointment to the position (Opinion
government officer or employee designated or dated January 25, 1994 of the Office
appointed to fill such vacant position, as provided for Legal Affairs, Civil Service
under Section 2077 of the Revised Administrative Commission, Re: Evora, Carlos, A.
Code which states that: Jr., Designation). 6

Sec. 2077. Compensation for person This Court has time and again ruled that:
appointed to temporary service.
Although technically not binding and
xxx xxx xxx controlling on the courts, the
construction given by the agency or
In case of the temporary absence or entity charged with the enforcement
disability of a provincial officer or in of a statute should be given great
case of a vacancy in a provincial weight and respect (In re Allen, 2
office, the President of the Philippines Phil. 630, 640), particularly so if
or officer having the power to fill such such construction, as in the case at
position may, in his discretion, order bar, has been uniform, and
the payment of compensation, or consistent, and has been observed
additional compensation, to any and acted on for a long period of time
Government officer or employee (Molina vs. Rafferty, 38 Phil. 167;
designated or appointed temporarily Madrigal vs. Rafferty, 38 Phil. 414;
to fill the place, but the total Philippine Sugar Central vs. Collector
compensation paid shall not exceed of Customs, 51 Phil.
the salary authorized by law for the 143). 7
position filled.
We see no justifiable reason to sustain petitioner's
argument that non-payment of his salary differential
 Page 3 of 3

and RATA would be a violation of his constitutional mayor still in possession of his right
right against deprivation of property without due to appoint. For such appointment to
process of law and the non-impairment of obligation be complete, the approval of the
of contracts clause in the Constitution. President of the Philippines is
required. The law provides that
The right to the salary of an Assistant Provincial pending approval of said
Treasurer is based on the assumption that the appointment by the President, the
appointment or designation thereof was made in appointee may assume office and
accordance with law. Considering that petitioner's receive salary for services actually
designation was without color of authority, the right rendered. Accordingly, therefore, in
to the salary or an allowance due from said office that duration until the appointment
never existed. Stated differently, in the absence of is finally acted upon favorably or
such right, there can be no violation of any unfavorably, the appointees may be
constitutional right nor an impairment of the considered as "de facto" officers and
obligation of contracts clause under the Constitution. entitled to salaries for services
actually rendered.
The nature of petitioner's designation and the
absence of authority of the Governor to authorize the Finally, the appointment signed by Finance
payment of the additional salary and RATA without Undersecretary Juanita D. Amatong is dated July 8,
the appropriate resolution from the Sangguniang 1994. Petitioner's claim that the appointment retro-
Panlalawigan does not make him a de facto officer. acts to his assumption of office is not confirmed by
the express phraseology of the appointment itself,
which states:
A de facto officer is defined as one who derives his
appointment from one having colorable authority to
appoint, if the office is an appointive office, and Kayo ay nahirang na ASSISTANT
whose appointment is valid on its face. It is likewise PROVINCIAL TREASURER FOR
defined as one who is in possession of an office, and ADMINISTRATION na may
is discharging its duties under color of authority, by katayuang PERMANENT sa OFFICE
which is meant authority derived from an OF THE PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF
appointment, however irregular or informal, so that BATANGAS sa pasahod na ONE
the incumbent be not a mere volunteer. 8 Then a de HUNDRED TWENTY ONE THOUSAND
facto officer is one who is in possession of an office in SIX HUNDRED TWENTY
the open exercise of its functions under color of an (P121,620.00) P.A. piso. Ito ay
election or an appointment, even though such magkakabisa sa petsa ng pagganap
election or appointment may be irregular. 9 ng tungkulin subalit di aaga sa petsa
ng pagpirma ng puno ng tanggapan o
appointing authority. 12
Petitioner invokes in his favor the ruling in Menzon
vs. Petilla, 10 that a de facto officer is entitled to
receive the salary for services actually rendered. The subsequent appointment of petitioner to the
However, his reliance on the Menzon case is position on July 8, 1994, cannot justify petitioner's
misplaced. In Menzon, what was extended was an retention of the excess amount of P61,308.00, which
appointment to the vacant position of Vice-Governor, corresponds to the amount disallowed and ordered
in petitioner's case, he was designated. The refunded by COA representing the salary and RATA in
appointment of Menzon had the color of validity. This excess of what was due him in 1993.
Court said:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is
And finally, even granting that the hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
President, acting through the
Secretary of Local Government,
possesses no power to appoint the
petitioner, at the very least, the
petitioner is a de facto officer entitled
to compensation. There is no denying
that the petitioner assumed the
Office of the Vice-Governor under a
color of a known appointment. As
revealed by the records, the
petitioner was appointed by no less
than the alter ego of the President,
The Secretary of Local Government,
after which he took his oath of office
before Senator Alberto Romulo in the
Office of Department of Local
Government Regional Director Res
Salvatierra. Concededly, the
appointment has the color of validity.

Likewise, the doctrine in Cui, et. al. vs.

Petitioners' appointment on
December 1 and 12, 1955 by the
then mayor of the municipality were
legal and in order, the appointing