CEFERINO NOROMOR, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. THE MUNICIPALITY OF ORAS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLANTS.

On August 14, 1950, Ceferino Noromor was appointed a member of the police
force of Oras, Samaf, 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 injuries, Noromor appealed
to the Court of Appeals where he was acquitted of the change on July 16, 1954,
the decision of the lower court having been reversed, with costs de
oficio. 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 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:

“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 ov 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.”

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 law 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
reappointed 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 1 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 record that
would show that the same has been disapproved. Apparently, there is still no
person with civil service eligibilty that may be appointed to take his place,
which accounts for the reason why he was indefinitely continued in office.

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

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