Legally Yours,  Political Law

Quimson v. Ozaeta

Quimson v. Ozaeta

98 Phil. 705 | March 26, 1956

FACTS:

The Rural Progress Administration (later referred to as Administration) is a public corporation created for the purpose of acquiring landed estates. Sometime in 1947, Aurelio R. Peña, comptroller of the Administration recommended to the Board of Directors of the Administration that for purposes of economy municipal treasurers be appointed agent-collectors of the Administration. 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. 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. The main objection to his appointment is that his additional compensation as agent-collector would contravene the Constitutional prohibition against double compensation.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the appointment of Quimson as agent-collector is unlawful.
  2. Whether or not Quimson could be paid for the period of actual service rendered by him from May 10, 1948. 

HELD:

The Supreme Court ruled that the employment of 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. 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. The prohibition of the Constitution was against double compensation or additional compensation, not double appointments. Hence, a second position may be held concurrently with the principal positionas long as the two are not incompatible, but the incumbent cannot collect additional salaries forservices rendered unless specifically allowed by law.

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. Plaintiff, therefore, took the risk or hazard of not being paid for any service that he may render in the meantime. We are afraid that he has no one to blame but himself. As such, Quimson could not be paid for the period of actual service rendered by him from May 10, 1948. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *