Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1963 > February 1963 Decisions > G.R. No. 18637 February 28, 1963 - CEFERINO NOROMOR v. MUNICIPALITY OF ORAS, SAMAR, ET AL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 18637. February 28, 1963.]

CEFERINO NOROMOR, Petitioner-Appellee, v. THE MUNICIPALITY OF ORAS, SAMAR, ET AL., Respondent.

Maximo M. Japson for Petitioner-Appellee.

Antonio D. Cinco for Respondents-Appellants.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


On August 14, 1950, Ceferino Noromor was appointed a member of the police force of Oras, Samar with a salary of P540.00 per annum by Mayor Florentino P. Lomuntad, having assumed the position by taking the necessary oath on August 15, 1950. On December 11, 1950, Noromor was charged by the fiscal with frustrated murder in Criminal Case No. 1272 before the Court of First Instance of Samar as a result of which he was suspended from office on. January 16, 1951. Because of his suspension the municipal treasurer stopped the payment of his salary from said date.

Having been found guilty of less serious physical in juries, Noromor appealed to the Court of Appeals where he was acquitted of the charge on July 16, 1951, the decision of the lower court having been reversed, with costs de officio. Because of his acquittal the mayor of Oras reinstated him to his position on September 1, 1954 and immediately he took his oath of office. After his reinstatement, Noromor demanded payment of his salary during his suspension from January 16, 1951 to August 31, 1954 at P45.00 a month, or a total of P1,957.50, which demand was favorably endorsed by the mayor to the municipal treasurer. This official prepared the voucher for said amount but its payment could not be effected for lack of the necessary appropriation in the municipal budget. Hence, Noromor filed a petition for mandamus before the Court of First Instance of Samar against the new mayor of Oras and the members of the incumbent municipal board, including the municipal treasurer, praying that respondents be ordered to approve a supplemental budget appropriating the necessary amount to pay his entire salary during his suspension and to grant him such other relief as may be just and equitable in the premises.

Respondents, in their answer, aver that petitioner was not reinstated but reappointed to his former position as policeman after his acquittal and that his claim for the payment of his salary during his suspension cannot be granted because he is a civil service non-eligible. They further aver that Republic Act No. 557 under which petitioner seeks to collect his salary during his suspension only applies to a policeman who is a civil service eligible and so it cannot be invoked by petitioner.

After trial, the court a quo rendered decision ordering respondents to pay petitioner the amount of P1,957.50 and ordering further the municipal board to immediately convene in special session to appropriate said amount in order that the municipal treasurer may effect its payment to petitioner. No costs, however, were awarded to petitioner.

Respondents interposed the present appeal which was certified to us because it only involves questions of law.

Section 4 of Republic Act No. 557 which is invoked by petitioner in claiming the payment of his salary during his suspension provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"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."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is evident that a member of the municipal police force who is suspended from office because of a charge filed against him involving a felony or a violation of law is entitled to the payment of the entire salary he failed to receive during his suspension in case of his acquittal. The provision of the law on this matter is clear and unmistakable. The laws says: "in case of acquittal, the accused shall be entitled to payment of the entire salary he failed to receive during his suspension." This provision appears to be mandatory and the same fully sustains the claim of petitioner.

It is true that petitioner is not a civil service eligible and Republic Act No. 557 only protects those who have civil service eligibility, but the inquiry before us is not whether petitioner is entitled or not to reinstatement or to be re-appointed to his position as a result of his separation or dismissal, but one which concerns the salary he failed to receive during his illegal suspension. There is no question that had he not been suspended he would have continued in office and received the salary corresponding to his service, the question of his eligibility not being material to be reckoned with. This question of eligibility has never been raised when his appointment was made except now in an attempt to block the collection of his salary. Moreover, the law as we quoted above does not make any distinction between eligible and non-eligible policeman when it comes to the payment of his salary during his suspension in case he is acquitted, and this doubt, if any there is in the law, should be resolved in favor of petitioner.

The contention that petitioner, being a civil service non- eligible, cannot serve more than three months unless his appointment is renewed for another three months at the pleasure of the appointing power, is also untenable, it appearing that the appointment extended to petitioner does not have any limitation in point of time. As a matter of fact, this appointment was submitted to the Commissioner of Civil Service and there is nothing in the recalled that would show that the same has been disapproved. Apparently there is still no person with civil service eligibility that may be appointed to take his place, which ac counts for the reason why he was indefinitely continued in office.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





February-1963 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-16187 February 27, 1963 - MINORS BENIGNO, ET AL. v. ANTONIO PEREZ

  • G.R. No. L-13057 February 27, 1963 - DELFIN MONTANO v. MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-16187 February 27, 1963 - MINORS BENIGNO, ET AL. v. ANTONIO PEREZ

  • G.R. No. L-16347 February 27, 1963 - JOSE B. YUSAY v. JUANITO TUGBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16797 February 27, 1963 - RODRIGO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL. v. SOCORRO A. RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16848 February 27, 1963 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE MAGLANOC

  • G.R. No. L-18182 February 27, 1963 - ALFREDO V. PEREZ v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18193 February 27, 1963 - NICASIO BERNALDES, SR., ET AL. v. BOHOL LAND TRANSPORTATION, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-18374 February 27, 1963 - PILAR G. VDA. DE KRAUT v. MANUEL LONTOK

  • G.R. No. L-18425 February 27, 1963 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. INTERNATIONAL OIL FACTORY

  • G.R. No. L-19145 February 27, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMULO DE LA MERCED

  • G.R. No. L-12444 February 28, 1963 - STATES MARINE CORPORATION, ET AL. v. CEBU SEAMEN’S ASSOCIATION, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-14947 February 28, 1963 - MAURICIO MIRANO, ET AL. v. MADRIGAL & COMPANY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-16036 February 28, 1963 - FLORENTINA UMENGAN v. REMIGIO BUTUCAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16163 February 28, 1963 - IGNACIO SATURNINO v. PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-16570 February 28, 1963 - ARSENIO SOLIDUM, ET AL. v. JAIME HERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-16602 February 28, 1963 - SERGIO F. NAGUIAT v. JACINTO ARCILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-17362 and L-17367-69 February 28, 1963 - MADRlGAL SHIPPING CO. v. MONICA MELAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17475 February 28, 1963 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FAR EAST AMERICAN COMMERCIAL. CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17775 February 28, 1963 - JAIME VILLAFUERTE v. ELIAS T. MARFIL

  • G.R. No. L-17931 February 28, 1963 - CASCO PHILIPPINE CHEMICAL CO., INC. v. HON. PEDRO GIMENEZ

  • G.R No. L-17951 February 28, 1963 - CONRADO C. FULE, ET AL. v. EMILIA E. DE LEGARE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18062 February 28, 1963 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ACOJE MINING COMPANY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-18148 February 28, 1963 - DEOGRACIAS BERNARDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18364 February 28, 1963 - PHIL. AM. CIGAR & CIGARETTE FACTORY WORKERS UNIONN v. PHIL. AM. CIGAR & CIGARETTE MFG CO.

  • G.R. No. L-18399 February 28, 1963 - MARCOS M. CALO v. FRANCISCO MAGNO

  • G.R. No. L-18471 February 28, 1963 - NATIONAL SHIPYARDS AND STEEL CORPORATION v. JOSE CALIXTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18479 February 28, 1963 - MINDORO TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. JOSE T. TORCUATOR

  • G.R. No. L-18603 February 28, 1963 - CANDIDA PIANO v. GENEROSA CAYANONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 18637 February 28, 1963 - CEFERINO NOROMOR v. MUNICIPALITY OF ORAS, SAMAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18638 February 28, 1963 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. SANTOS DONASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18646 February 28, 1963 - JULIA A. DE GUIA, ET AL. v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-18697 February 28, 1963 - EMPLOYEES & LABORERS COOP. ASSO., ET AL. v. NATIONAL UNION OF RESTAURANT WORKERS

  • G.R. No. L-19129 February 28, 1963 - CITY OF CABANATUAN ET AL. v. MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19136 February 28, 1963 - KAMUNING THEATER, INC. v. QUEZON CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19187 February 28, 1963 - STERLING PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL. v. LORETA C. SOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19248 February 28, 1963 - ILUMINADO HANOPOL v. PERFECTO PILAPIL

  • G.R. No. L-19249 February 28, 1963 - CRISPINA GUANZON, ET AL. v. FERNANDO MAPA

  • G.R. No. L-19828 February 28, 1963 - GUSTAVO A. SUAREZ v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20147 February 28, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO AGUILAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20768 February 28, 1963 - ELISEO B. LEMI v. BRIGIDO VALENCIA, ET AL.