You are on page 1of 4
ADMIN Atty. Bruce P. Rivera CASE DIGEST MONSANTO vs FACTORAN 170 SCRA 190 February 9, 1989

ADMIN

Atty. Bruce P. Rivera

CASE DIGEST

MONSANTO vs FACTORAN

170 SCRA 190

February 9, 1989

Requirements for Public Office

  • Disqualification p. 31 Carlo Cruz, The Law of Public Officers (2007)

FACTS: Salvacion A. Monsanto is an assistant city treasurer of Calbayog City.

ADMIN Atty. Bruce P. Rivera CASE DIGEST MONSANTO vs FACTORAN 170 SCRA 190 February 9, 1989

She was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of committing the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents. She appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, such was not reversed. She then duly filed a motion for reconsideration. While the motion was pending, President Marcos granted her an absolute pardon.

Acting on the absolute pardon granted her, she wished to be reinstated to her position as assistant city treasurer. Her request by processed by the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry granted her request for reinstatement. However, it shall take effect only right after her pardon. She was also reminded to pay the indemnification required of her by the Sandiganbayan. (P4, 892.50)

This pissed her off. She said that she should be reinstated effectively starting from the date of her suspension (August 1, 1982) and not from the effectivity of the absolute pardon (April 17, 1985 ). Also, she does not want to pay her penalty for she understands that being granted the absolute pardon also removed her legal obligation to pay her penalties.

The Ministry of Finance forwarded her concern to the Office of the President. The Office of the President replied through Deputy Executive Secretary Fulgencio S. Factoran. Factoran held that both the Ministry of Finance and Ms. Monsnato are wrong. Factoran held that:

  • 1. She cannot be automatically reinstated. ONLY acquittal and NOT PARDON can give rise to such effect. She must secure reappointment.

  • 2. She is still liable for the civil liability and she still must pay.

This, of course, super pissed Ms. Monsanto because what the eff, she was granted absolute pardon, hence, she invoked the power of the Supreme Court to decide on the matter.

ISSUE: Being a public officer granted the absolute pardon, can she be automatically reinstated to her old position without need for reappointment?

RULING: SUPER NOPE.

1

ADMIN Atty. Bruce P. Rivera CASE DIGEST MONSANTO vs FACTORAN 170 SCRA 190 February 9, 1989
ADMIN Atty. Bruce P. Rivera CASE DIGEST NO automatic reinstatement whatsoever is to take effect. Upon

ADMIN

Atty. Bruce P. Rivera

CASE DIGEST

NO automatic reinstatement whatsoever is to take effect. Upon conviction of Estafa, absolute disqualification or ineligibility from public office forms part of the punishment. Upon her absolute pardon, this particular disability was removed. So, she can apply for reappointment to the same position that she lost because she was convicted.

The pardon only removed her disqualification from public office. It cannot go beyond that. To regain her former post as assistant city treasurer, she must re-apply and undergo the usual procedure required for a new appointment.

The court stressed that upon her application that “in considering her qualifications and suitability for the public post, the facts constituting her offense must be and should be evaluated and taken into account to determine ultimately whether she can once again be entrusted with public funds.

Having accepted the pardon, Monsanto is deemed to have abandoned her appeal and her unreversed conviction by the Sandiganbayan assumed the character of finality.

Quotable quote #1: “The very essence of a pardon is forgiveness or remission of guilt. Pardon implies guilt. It does not erase the fact of the commission of the crime and the conviction thereof. It does not wash out the moral stain. It involves forgiveness and not forgetfulness.

Quotable quote #2: The very act of forgiveness implies the commission of wrong, and that wrong has been established by the most complete method known to modern civilization. Pardons may relieve from the disability of fines and forfeitures attendant upon a conviction, but they cannot erase the stain of bad character, which has been definitely fixed.

She was also made to pay her share because civil liability may only be extinguished by the same causes recognized in the Civil Code, namely: payment, loss of the thing due, remission of the debt, merger of the rights of creditor and debtor, compensation and novation. Hence, she must pay.

2

ADMIN Atty. Bruce P. Rivera CASE DIGEST NO automatic reinstatement whatsoever is to take effect. Upon
ADMIN Atty. Bruce P. Rivera CASE DIGEST RODRIGUEZ vs TAN 91 Phil 724 August 7, 1952

ADMIN

Atty. Bruce P. Rivera

CASE DIGEST

RODRIGUEZ vs TAN

91 Phil 724

August 7, 1952

De Facto Officers

  • Requisite for De Facto Officership 2.Color of Title p. 55 Carlo Cruz, The Law of Public Officers (2007)

FACTS: Carlos Tan and Eulogio Rodriguez were candidates for Senator during the 1947 election.

Carlos Tan was declared one of the winning senatorial candidates.

The 1947 Philippine election was tainted with massive electoral fraud. Eight of the 24 seats in the Senate were contested. Eulogio Rodriguez contested Carlos Tan’s win.

Eulogio Rodriguez filed an election protest and won. He unseated Carlos Tan and duly replaced him as senator.

Upon winning the protest, he filed a case praying for Carlos Tan to pay the aggregate sum of P18,400 as salaries and allowances, and the sum of P35,524.55 as damages for usurping the office of Senator of the Philippines which rightfully belongs to him from December 30, 1947, to December 27, 1949.

Carlos Tan declines to pay for he was a de facto officer and was therefore entitled to the salariries and allowances that he received while in service.

ISSUE: Can Senator Eulogio Rodriguez claim from Carlos Tan all the salaries and allowances that were supposedly his given that he was the true winning candidate?

RULING: NOPE.

Senator Rodriguez cannot claim from Carlos Tan for Carlos Tan was a de facto officer.

A candidate proclaimed in an election irregularly held will be a de facto officer before the nullification of the election as such election will give him color or title to the office from which he is ultimately unseated. Being proclaimed in an election even if there was cheating, made Carlos Tan a de facto officer for it granted him the color of title.

As per the Supreme Court, “there is no question that the defendant acted as a de facto officer during the time he held the office of Senator. He was one of the candidates of the Liberal Party in the elections of November 11, 1947, and was proclaimed as one of those who had been elected by the Commission on Elections, and thereafter he took the oath of office and immediately entered into the

performance of the duties of the position.”

3

ADMIN Atty. Bruce P. Rivera CASE DIGEST RODRIGUEZ vs TAN 91 Phil 724 August 7, 1952
ADMIN Atty. Bruce P. Rivera CASE DIGEST Having been thus duly proclaimed as Senator and having

ADMIN

Atty. Bruce P. Rivera

CASE DIGEST

Having been thus duly proclaimed as Senator and having assumed office as required by law, it cannot be disputed that defendant is entitled to the compensation, emoluments and allowances which our Constitution provides for the. This is simple justice. The emolument must go to the person who rendered the service unless the contrary is provided. There is no allegation in the complaint that Tan was involved in the massive electoral cheating. This is the policy and the rule that has been followed consistently in this jurisdiction in connection with positions held by persons who had been elected thereto but were later ousted as a result of an election protest. The right of the persons elected to compensation during their incumbency has always been recognized.

Hence, Senator Rodriguez cannot claim from Tan. There was no usurpation for he was a de facto officer who duly earned his salaries and allowances due to the color of title granted him. Sen. Rodriguez may have been the true winner but the principle of “no work, no pay” still applies to him. Baahahahahahh~

4

ADMIN Atty. Bruce P. Rivera CASE DIGEST Having been thus duly proclaimed as Senator and having