AURELIO TIRO, AS CITY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF CEBU CITY, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. HONORABLE AGAPITO HONTANOSAS, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU, BRANCH XI, ZA…

In Civil Case No. 11616 of the defunct Court of First Instance of
Cebu, Zafra Financing Enterprise sued Aurelio Tiro in his official capacity as
Superintendent of Schools in Cebu City. It appears that Zafra had extended loans to public school teachers in
Cebu City and the teachers concerned executed
promissory notes and special powers of attorney in favor of Zafra to take and
collect their salary checks from the Division Office in Cebu City of the Bureau
of Public Schools. However, Tiro
forbade the collection of the checks on the basis of Circular No. 21, series
1969, dated December 5, 1969, of the Director of Public Schools which reads as
follows:

“PROHIBITING
PAYMENT OF SALARY TO

PERSONS OTHER
THAN THE EMPLOYEE

CONCERNED

To Superintendents:

1.  Quoted hereunder is
Memorandum Order No. 93 dated February 5, 1968, of the Executive Office
entitled, ‘Prohibiting Payment of Salary to Any Person Other Than the Employees
Concerned, Except As Provided Herein.’

It has been observed that some employees delegate the collection of
their salaries to attor­neys-in-fact on the strength of powers of attorney or
other forms of authority in favor of other persons, evidently in satisfaction of obligations con­tracted by
them. This practice should be dis­couraged
in view of its adverse effects on the efficiency and morale of employees whose
in­centive to work is necessarily impaired, since their salary or a portion
thereof goes to other persons.

To curb this unwholesome practice, it is hereby directed that
henceforth no cashier or disbursing officer
shall pay to attorneys-in-fact or other persons who may be authorized under a power of attorney or other forms of
authority to collect the salary of an employee, except when the persons so
designated and authorized is an immediate member of the family of the employee
concerned, and in all other cases, except upon proper authorization of the
Assistant Executive Secretary for Legal and Administrative Matters, with the
recommendation of the Financial Assistant.

All orders or regulations inconsistent herewith are hereby revoked.

This order shall take
effect immediately.

2.  Accordingly, it is desired that, henceforth, cashiers
or disbursing officers pay the salary due any school employee or issue the treasury warrant of any
teacher direct to such employee or teacher, except when authority to collect
the salary or treasury warrant has been given to another person, and the person
so authorized is an immediate member of the family of the employee or teacher
concerned.

3.  Any previous regulation issued by this Office inconsistent
with this Circular is hereby revoked.”

Zafra sought to compel Tiro to honor the special powers of
attorney; to declare Circular No. 21 to be illegal; and to make Tiro pay
attorney’s fees and damages. The trial
court granted the prayer of Zafra but the claim for money was disallowed on the
ground that he acted in good faith in implementing Circular No. 21.

Tiro now seeks in this petition for review a reversal of the
trial court’s decision.

The petition is highly impressed with merit.

The core issue is whether or not Circular No. 21 is valid and
enforceable and the answer is definitely in the affirmative.

The salary check of a government officer or employee such as a
teacher does not belong to him before it is physically delivered to him. Until that time the check belongs to the Government. Accor­dingly, before
there is actual delivery of the check, the payee has no power over it; he cannot assign it without the consent of the Govern­ment. On this basis Circular No. 21 stands on firm legal footing.

The Circular in question
is authorized by relevant statutes extant when it was issued such as the
following:

“SEC. 79 (b). Power to
regulate – The Depart­ment Head shall have power to promulgate, whoever he may see fit to do so, all rules,
regulations, orders, circular, memorandums, not contrary to law, necessary to
regulate the proper working and harmonious and efficient administration of each
and all of the offices and dependencies of his Department, and for the strict
enforcement and proper execution of the laws relative to matters under the
jurisdiction of said Department; but none of said rules or orders shall
prescribe penalties. All rules,
regulations, orders or instructions of a general and permanent character promulgated
in conformity with this section shall be numbered by each Department
consecutively each year, and shall be duly published.

Chiefs of Bureaus or
offices may, however, be authorized to promulgate circulars of
information or instructions for the government of the officers and employees in
the interior administration of the business of each Bureau or office, and in
such case said circulars shall not be required to be published.” (Revised
Administration Code.)

“SEC. 21. Deductions
Prohibited. – No person shall make any
deduction whatsoever from the sala­ries of teachers except under specific
authority of law authorizing such deductions: Provided, however, that upon written authority executed by the teacher
concerned, (1) lawful dues and fees owing to the Philippine Public School
Teachers Association, and (2) premiums properly due on insurance
policies, shall be deductible.” (Magna Carta For Teachers, R.A. No. 4670.)

Zafra’s claim that the Circular impairs the obligation of
contracts with the teachers is baseless. For the Circular does not prevent Zafra from collecting the loans. The Circular merely makes the Government a
non-participant in their collection which is within its competence to do.

WHEREFORE, the petition is granted; the judgment of
the court a quo is hereby set aside; costs against the private
respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, and Escolin, JJ., concur.

De Castro, J., no part.