Cantillo vs. Arrieta

A provisional appointment as municipal policeman does not cure the appointee’s lack of the general qualifications required by Section 9 of Republic Act No. 4864; an appointment vitiated by such lack of qualifications is invalid and does not entitle the appointee to reinstatement or back salaries after suspension. During his tenure, he is at best a de facto officer entitled to emoluments for actual services rendered.

Jose Cantillo claimed back salaries from the Municipality of Maramag, Bukidnon, in connection with his service in its police force. His claim rested on Section 4 of Republic Act No. 557, later rephrased in Section 16 of Republic Act No. 4864, which entitles a suspended police member to salary upon acquittal. Republic Act No. 4864, the Police Act of 1966, also prescribed general qualifications for appointment to a local police agency, including age and educational requirements.

Jose Cantillo was appointed temporary municipal policeman of Maramag, Bukidnon, on October 6, 1962; he took his oath of office and served as such. His appointment was attested to by the Provincial Treasurer of Bukidnon and the Commissioner of Civil Service. On November 2, 1964, he was given another appointment as municipal policeman, which was provisional in nature; he took his oath, acted, and qualified as such, and the appointment was attested to as provisional by the Provincial Treasurer of Bukidnon and the Commissioner of Civil Service. On January 20, 1967, he was given another provisional appointment as municipal policeman, took his oath, acted, and qualified, with the appointment to take effect on July 1, 1966; this provisional appointment was also attested to by the Provincial Treasurer of Bukidnon and the Commissioner of Civil Service. At the time of his original appointment on October 6, 1962, Cantillo was 41 years old, having been born on October 19, 1920, and he was then and still was a second year high school student.

On October 16, 1967, Cantillo was suspended from the service as patrolman of the Police Force of Maramag, Bukidnon, because a criminal case for Infidelity in the Custody of the Prisoner was filed against him; he was not arraigned in that case. On November 26, 1968, Assistant Provincial Fiscal Arcadio D. Fabria moved for the provisional dismissal of the case on the ground that the prosecution did not have sufficient evidence to prove Cantillo’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt; from the time of the dismissal up to the time of the decision, no more action had been taken against him. After the dismissal, Cantillo presented oral and written requests for reinstatement and claimed payment of his back salary corresponding to the time of his reinstatement, but the respondents turned down the request. It appears that his position in the police force of Maramag, Bukidnon, had been abolished by the municipal council effective July 1, 1968, which accounted for his voluntary desistance in pursuing his original plea for reinstatement.

On February 12, 1969, Cantillo commenced the mandamus case below, demanding that the respondent municipality be compelled to pay his back salaries during his suspension from October 16, 1967 to June 30, 1968, basing his claim on Section 4 of Republic Act No. 557. The law in force when he was extended his latest provisional appointment as municipal policeman on January 20, 1967 was Republic Act No. 4864, the Police Act of 1966, which took effect on September 8, 1966. Section 9 of that Act required, among other things, that an appointee to a local police agency be not less than 23 nor more than 33 years of age and, in the case of an appointment in a municipal police force, that the appointee have at least completed high school. Section 11 authorized provisional appointments of policemen where no civil service eligibles were available, but expressly required that a patrolman-appointee possess at least the general qualifications in Section 9.

At the time of his latest provisional appointment on January 20, 1967, Cantillo was at least 46 years old, or clearly 13 years over the maximum age qualification, and he had studied only up to second year high school, a couple of years short of the minimum educational requirement for the position.

• Back Salaries Under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 557: Petitioner argued that under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 557, he was entitled to payment of the entire salary he failed to receive during his suspension.

• Qualifications for Appointment: Whether Cantillo’s lack of the general qualifications required by Section 9 of Republic Act No. 4864 invalidated his provisional appointment and precluded his claim for back salaries.
• Acquittal by Provisional Dismissal: Whether the provisional dismissal of the criminal case against Cantillo amounted to acquittal under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 557, as reenacted in Section 16 of Republic Act No. 4864.

• Qualifications for Appointment: Yes. The lack of qualifications affected the very validity of Cantillo’s appointment, not merely his civil service eligibility; his provisional appointment did not cure the defect, and he was at best a de facto officer entitled only to emoluments for actual services.
• Acquittal by Provisional Dismissal: Not resolved. The SC deemed it unnecessary to decide whether the provisional dismissal amounted to acquittal after holding that Cantillo’s lack of qualifications precluded his claim.

• Qualifications for Appointment: Section 9 of Republic Act No. 4864, the Police Act of 1966, required that an appointee to a local police agency be not less than 23 nor more than 33 years of age and, for a municipal police force, have at least completed high school. Section 11 allowed provisional appointments where no civil service eligibles were available, but expressly required that a patrolman-appointee possess at least the general qualifications in Section 9. Cantillo was 41 at his original appointment on October 6, 1962 and at least 46 at his latest provisional appointment on January 20, 1967, or 13 years over the maximum age; he had studied only up to second year high school, short of the minimum educational requirement. The SC held that the infirmity was not mere absence of civil service eligibility but lack of qualifications for the office, which affected the validity of the appointment and precluded reinstatement. During his tenure he was at best a de facto officer entitled to emoluments for actual services rendered. His provisional appointment did not render nugatory Section 9, and the tolerance, acquiescence, or mistake of proper officials did not make the legal requirement ineffective and unenforceable.
• Acquittal by Provisional Dismissal: The SC expressly deemed it unnecessary to resolve whether the provisional dismissal of the criminal case against Cantillo amounted to acquittal within the meaning of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 557, as reenacted in Section 16 of Republic Act No. 4864, concerning payment of salary during suspension. The qualifications ruling already precluded the claim.

• Provisional Appointment Does Not Cure Lack of Qualifications — A provisional appointment under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 4864 may be made where no civil service eligibles are available, but a patrolman-appointee must still possess at least the general qualifications in Section 9. Cantillo’s age and education failed those requirements, so his appointment was invalid and could not support reinstatement or back salaries.
• De Facto Officer — The SC held that one whose appointment lacks the required qualifications is at best a de facto officer during his tenure, entitled to emoluments for actual services rendered. Cantillo, lacking qualifications, was at best a de facto officer and could not claim back salaries for the suspension period.
• Tolerance or Acquiescence of Officials — The SC held that the tolerance, acquiescence, or mistake of proper officials, resulting in non-observance of pertinent rules, does not render the legal requirement ineffective and unenforceable. The attestation of Cantillo’s appointments by the Provincial Treasurer and the Commissioner of Civil Service did not cure the lack of qualifications.

• “The infirmity of petitioner's appointment was not mere absence of civil service eligibility but of qualifications for the office. It affected therefore the very validity of such appointment, and precluded the reinstatement he claimed after he was suspended. During his tenure he was at best only a de facto officer and as such entitled to emoluments for actual services rendered.” — The SC held that lack of qualifications, not mere absence of civil service eligibility, invalidated the appointment and limited Cantillo to de facto emoluments.
• “His provisional appointment did not render nugatory the requirements of Section 9 of the Police Act of 1966 so as to give color of validity to petitioner's occupancy of the position.” — The SC rejected the argument that a provisional appointment could override the Section 9 qualifications.
• “Thus, while Section 11 of the same Act authorized provisional appointments of policemen where no civil service eligibles are available therefor, it expressly required that "in case of a patrolman-appointee, he shall possess at least the general qualifications provided for in Section nine of this Act" in order that he could be appointed provisionally.” — The SC held that Section 11 provisional appointments still require the Section 9 general qualifications.

• Favis vs. Rupisan, et al., 17 SCRA 190, 196 — Cited by the SC for the rule that tolerance, acquiescence, or mistake of proper officials does not render the legal requirement ineffective and unenforceable.
• Ibañez vs. Commission on Election, 19 SCRA 1002 — Cited with Favis for the same rule.

• Section 9, Republic Act No. 4864 (Police Act of 1966) — Required general qualifications for appointment to a local police agency: age not less than 23 nor more than 33, and for municipal police, at least completed high school. Applied to invalidate Cantillo’s appointment.
• Section 11, Republic Act No. 4864 — Authorized provisional appointments where no civil service eligibles were available, but required a patrolman-appointee to possess at least the general qualifications in Section 9. Applied to hold that the provisional appointment did not cure the defect.
• Section 4, Republic Act No. 557 — Provided that a suspended municipal police member is entitled to the entire salary he failed to receive during suspension in case of acquittal. Cantillo invoked it; the SC did not resolve whether the provisional dismissal was an acquittal because the qualifications issue disposed of the claim.
• Section 16, Republic Act No. 4864 — Rephrased Section 4 of Republic Act No. 557, providing immediate reinstatement and payment of the entire salary upon acquittal. The SC noted the issue but did not resolve it.