Effects of Acts of De Facto Officer

G.R. No. L-31444 November 13, 1974 JOSE CANTILLO, petitioner, vs. HON. ABUNDIO Z. ARRIETA, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Bukidnon, Branch II, THE MUNICIPALITY OF MARAMAG, PROVINCE OF BUKIDNON; THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF MARAMAG, CONRADO MICAYABAS, in his capacity as THE MUNICIPAL MAYOR, MARAMAG, BUKIDNON, TORIBIO BALISTOY, in his capacity as THE VICE-MAYOR, MARAMAG, BUKIDNON and PEDRO ORMILLADA, in his capacity as THE MUNICIPAL TREASURER, MARAMAG, BUKIDNON, respondents.

I. Doctrine

II. Facts Petitioner herein was originally appointed as Temporary Municipal Policeman of the municipality of Maramag, Bukidnon which was attested by the Provl Treasurer and the SCS. Pursuant thereto, he took an oath of office and proceeded to serve in said municipality. Subsequently, petitioner was given another provisional appointment as Municipal Policeman in the same municipality and took his oath of office by virtue of said appointment. Said appointment was attested by the Provl Treasurer and the CSC. On his original appointment, Cantillo was 41 years old and was a second year high school student. He was later suspended from service as a result of a criminal case filed against him for Infidelity in the Custody of the prisoner and that he was not arraigne d in said case. The then Asst. Provl Fiscal Fabria moved for the provisional dismissal of the case against petitioner for the insufficient evidence produced by the prosecution to establish petitioners guilt. After the dismissal of said case, petitioner p resented oral and written requests for his reinstatement to the service and likewise prayed for the payment of his back salary. Petitioner commenced a mandamus case demanding that respondent municipality be compelled to pay his back salaries during his period of suspension basing his claim on sec. 4 of RA 557 which provides: SEC. 4. When a member of the provincial guards, city police or municipal police is accused in court of any felony or violation of law by the provincial fiscal or city fiscal, as the case may be, the provincial governor, the city mayor or the municipal mayor shall immediately suspend the accused from office pending the final decision of the case by the court and, in case of acquittal the accused shall be entitled to payment of the entire salary he failed to receive during his suspension. (Emphasis supplied). III. Issue/s Whether or not Petitioner was entitled to be paid of the back salary from the time of his suspension to his possible reinstatement IV. Held/Ruling NO. The law in force at the time of petitioners provisional appointment as municipal policeman was RA 486, or the Police Act of 1966. Sec. 9 thereof enumerates the general qualifications for appointment to a local police agency require inter alia that the appointee in the case of an appointment in a municipal police force must have at least completed highschool.

Effects of Acts of De Facto Officer

Considering that at the time of petitioners primary appointment, he was short of the minimum educational requirement for position to which he had been appointed merely emphasizes his lack of qualifications required by law. This obviously affected the very validity of his appointment and barred the reinstatement he claimed after his suspension. During his tenure, he was only a de facto officer entitled to emolument for actual services rendered. The mistake of the proper officials resulting to the non-observance of the rules on the matter, does not render the legal requirement ineffective and unenforceable. In herein, what was not observed was the possession of the general qualifications for the appointment to the local police agency. V. Dispositive In view of what has been stated above, We deem it unnecessary to resolve the issue of whether or not the provisional dismissal of the criminal case filed against petitioner amounted to acquittal within the meaning of Section 4 of Rep. Act No. 557, as reenacted in Section 16 of Rep. Act No. 4864, concerning the payment of the salary during the period of suspension. The decision appealed from is affirmed. No pronouncement as to costs.