CSC V JOSON HELD:

GR NO 154674
The records show that the position of Executive Assistant IV in the POEA Administrators office was created with the
FACTS: approval of the DBM
 Joson was then the administrator of POEA appointed Priscilla Ong as Executive Assistant IV in his office  It’s apparent that respondent intended the position for Ong, whom he consider efficient and competent
under a contractual status. for the job even though he knew that she does not possess the educational requirement.
 The appointment was made after the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Director Doctor  This is why he requested for the exemption of Ong from such requirement.
approved his request of creation of contractual position of Executive Ass. IV
the petitioner granted the respondents request and stated that the appointment of Ong may be approved under a
Subsequently, respondent Joson wrote to the CSC requesting exemption from the rule requiring appointees to coterminous temporary status
confidential staff positions to meet the prescribed educational qualification.  because the appointee did not meet all the requirements for the position
 The requirement for the Executive Assistant is a Bachelor’s degree relevant to the job  The appointment could be recalled anytime.
 Ong was not a college degree holder
Under Section 4, Rule V of the Omnibus Rules, Ongs appointment is in order
Acting upon this request, the petitioner CSC issued Resolution approving the appointment of Ong under
a Coterminous Temporary status.
Except as otherwise provided herein, a person who meets all the requirements of the position including the
appropriate civil service eligibility shall be appointed to a position in the first and second levels. However, when the
However, Director Nelson of CSC NCR issued a post audit report on the issuance of Ongs appointment and
immediate filling of a vacancy becomes necessary, taking into account the public interest, and a person with an
invalidated the same.
appropriate civil service eligibility is not actually and immediately available, a person without the appropriate civil
service eligibility but who meets the other requirements of the position may be appointed. His appointment shall be
 A motion for reconsideration was filed stressing that DBM allowed the POEA to create such a position not
temporary for a period of not more than twelve (12) months and he may be replaced at any time with one who
earlier than July 1, 1995 and CSC likewise approved the same.
has an appropriate civil service eligibility.
 Upon instructions of Director Nelson, the effectivity of Ong’s appointment was changed from July 1 to Nov
2, 1995
 In approving the appointment of Ong, the petitioner took into account the exigency and urgency of filling
Considering the said adjustment, Joson requested the approval for the payment of Ong’s Salary from July to October up the position of Executive Assistant
--- CSC DENIED THIS REQUEST  It cannot be said that for want of college degree Ong’s appointment was in contravention of the CSC law
 Citing Rep. Act No. 7430 also known as the Attrition Law which states that:
o no appointment shall be made to fill up a vacancy unless an authority has been granted by it
Likewise, the court rejects the CSC’s contention that Ong’s appointment is invalid as it did not comply with SEC 3
o the petitioner posited that the authority to fill the position was granted only on November 2,
of RA 7430
1995.
 This only applies to appointments to fill vacant position in a government office as a result of resignation,
retirement, dismissal, death, or transfer to another office of an officer or employee within five years from
The request for the payment of salary referred to the period prior to the date of authority to fill the position cannot
be allowed. the approval of the law.
 CSC concluded as the appointing authority, he should be the one liable for the payment of salaries being
Ong’s appointment is not covered by 7430 because Ong was appointed to a newly-created position as part of the
claimed.
confidential/personal staff of the respondent.
The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, averring that Ong was appointed to a newly-created position
Having been validly appointed to the position of Executive Assistant IV in the Office of the respondent, Ong is a de
which does not require any such authority from the petitioner
jure officer and not a de facto officer as held by the Court of Appeals.
 The respondent emphasized in his motion that the DBM approved the creation of the position for Ong
 if at all, it is the POEA who should be liable under the principle of quantum meruit since the latter was the DE JURE -- One who has the reputation of being the officer he assumes and yet is not a good officer in point of law.
one benefited.
-- not only is the one who rendered services who should paid but equally important, is that the one DE FACTO -- one who is in possession of the office and discharging its duties under color of authority.
benefited from such services must be the one who should pay the services.
Ong assumed the position and discharged her functions as Executive Assistant IV on July 1, 1995. Thenceforth,
CSC denied this motion, It also declared that Ongs appointment was not included in the POEAs Report on Personnel she was entitled to the payment of her salary
Action (ROPA).
 POEA submitted Ong’s appointment in its ROPA only in November such belated report rendered the July
appointment ineffective.

Another motion was filed pointing out that Ong may be considered a de facto public officer who is entitled
to the payment of salaries for actual services rendered.

CA, rendered decision ruling that Ong was considered a de facto officer and is entitled to the payment of her salary.

ISSUE: WON ONG IS A DE FACTO OFFICER MAKING HER ENTITLED FOR PAYMENT OF HER SALARY FOR
THE SERVICES RENDERED
 CANTILLO V ARRIETA While Section 11 of the same Act authorized provisional appointments of policemen where no civil service eligibles
G.R. No. L-31444 are available therefor, it expressly required that "in case of a patrolman-appointee, he shall possess at least the
FACTS: general qualifications provided.

1962, petitioner was originally appointed Temporary Municipal Policeman of the municipality of Maramag, Bukidnon
 Pursuant to said appointment petitioner took his oath of office and served as such, for the municipality of
Maramag, Bukidnon
That said appointment was attested to by the Provincial Treasurer of Bukidnon and CSC.
The tolerance, acquiescence or mistake of the proper officials, resulting in the non-observance of the pertinent rules
on the resulting in the non-observance of the pertinent rules on the matter, does not render the legal requirement
(in this case the possession of the general qualifications for appointment to the local police agency), ineffective and
unenforceable

1964, petitioner was given another appointment took his oath of office by virtue thereof, acted and qualified as such
 The appointment was however provisional in nature was attested to as provisional by the Treasurer and
CSC

1967, petitioner was given another provisional appointment

 That provisional appointment was attested to by the Provincial Treasurer of Bukidnon, and the
Commissioner of Civil Service

That at the time of petitioners' original appointment of October 6, 1962, petitioner was 41 years of age, and he was
still in second year high school.

1967, petitioner was suspended from the service because of the filing of a criminal case against him for Infidelity in
the Custody of the Prisoner

1968, the then Assistant Provincial Fiscal Arcadio D. Fabria moved for the provisional dismissal of the case against
petitioner on the ground that the prosecution did not have sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the petitioner
beyond reasonable doubt

In 1969, petitioner commenced the mandamus case demanding that respondent municipality be compelled to pay
his back salaries during his period of suspension from October 16, 1967 to June 30, 1968

ISSUE : WON HE IS ENTITLED FOR THE SALARIES BEING CLAIMED

HELD:

The law in force when petitioner was extended is latest provisional appointment as municipal policeman was RA.
4864 otherwise known as the Police Act of 1966
Section 9 thereof enumerates the general qualifications for appointment to a local police agency
 that the appointee be not less than 23 nor more than 33 years of age
 an appointment in a municipal police force, that the appointee must have at least completed high school.

Considering that on October 6, 1962, when petitioner was first appointed as temporary municipal policeman, he was
already 41 years old, he was at least 46, clearly 13 years over the maximum age qualification.
 His having studied only up to second year in high school, a couple of years short of the minimum
educational requirement for position to which he had been appointed, merely accentuates further his lack
of the qualifications required by law.

The infirmity of petitioner's appointment was not mere absence of civil service eligibility but of qualifications for the
office.
 It affected therefore the very validity of such appointment, and precluded the reinstatement he claimed
after he was suspended
During his tenure he was at best only a de facto officer and as such entitled to emoluments for actual services
rendered.
 His provisional appointment did not render nugatory the requirements of Section 9 of the Police Act of
1966 so as to give color of validity to petitioner's occupancy of the position.