Quimzon vs. Ozaeta

BRAULIO QUIMSON VS. BOMAN OZAETA, ET AL., 

G.R. No, L-8321, March 26, 1956

Sometime in 1947, plaintiff-appellant Braulio Quimson, deputy provincial treasurer and municipal treasurer of Caloocan, Rizal, was recommended for appointment by Aurelio  R. Pefia, a comptroller and performs duties of auditor in representation of the Auditor General of Rural Progress Administration (Administration), a public corporation created for the purpose of acquiring landed estates through  purchase, expropriation or lease, and later sub-letting or sub-leasing the same to  tenants or occupants, as an agent collector of the Administration on a part time basis. Without waiting for the approval of said appointment, Quimson assumed his position on May 6, 1948 and rendered service as agent-collector of the Administration until October 21,  1949 when he was informed that his services was terminated because of the disapproval of his appointment by the Auditor General who alleged among others that, since Quimson was  deputy  provincial  treasurer and municipal treasurer of Caloocan,  his  additional compensation as  agent-ollector  would contravene  the  Constitutional prohibition  against  double  compensation.

The Commissioner of Civil Service said that he would offer no objection to the additional compensation of Quimson as agent collector provided it was authorized in a special provision exempting the case from the inhibition against the payment of extra compensation in accordance with section 259 of the Revised Administrative Code.  In this connection, it may be stated that this section of the Administrative Code provides that in the absence of special provision, no officer or employee in any branch of the Government service shall  receive additional  compensation  on  account of  the discharge of duties pertaining to another or to the performance  of public service   of  whatever  nature. 

ISSUE:
 Whether the appointment extended to Quimson was illegal and the administration may not be obliged to pay him for the services rendered.

RULING:
The appointment or employment of plaintiff-appellant 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.   In fact, he was appointed agent-collector by reason of his office, being a 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.  Clerks of court are sometimes appointed or designated, as provincial sheriffs. Municipal Treasurers, like plaintiff are often appointed and designated as deputy provincial treasurer.  The Department Secretaries are often, designated to act as Chairman or members of Board of Directors of government corporations.  The objection or prohibition refers to double compensation and not to double appointments and performance of functions of more than one office.

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.  He should have known that his appointment had to go over or through several obstacles and hazards, but he took the risk and began serving, as agent-collector before his, appointment was approved.  We are afraid that he has no one to blame but himself.