Dimaandal v.

Commission on Audit

Facts:
In 1992, Zosimo Dimaandal, then Supply Officer III of the province of Batangas,
was designated by then Governor Vicente Mayo as Acting Assistant Provincial Treasurer.
Pursuant to the designation, Dimaandal filed a claim for allowance of P68, 308 as his
salary and RATA differential for the year 1993. The provincial auditor disallowed the
claim to the extent of P52,908 and allowed only P8,400 which corresponds to the
difference in the allowance attached to the designation and the position occupied by
him. The grounds relied upon for the disallowance were: (1) that the power to appoint or
designate an assistant provincial treasure is lodged with the Secretary of Finance and
not with the governor; and (2) that the designation is temporary, no appointment was
actually issued. The governor asked for reconsideration but was denied. Dimaandal then
appealed the auditor’s decision to the Commission on Audit. COA affirmed. It pointed out
that Dimaandal was merely designated as Acting Assistant Provincial Treasurer in
addition to his regular duties hence, he is not entitled to receive additional salary. It also
declared that Dimaandal was not entitled to the RATA differential previously awarded to
him since the party that designated him was not a “duly competent authority.” In the
present petition, Dimaandal argues that he is entitled to the amount being claimed
because he actually rendered services and that he should at least be deemed as a de
facto officer citing the case of Menzon v. Petilla.

Issue:
WON an employee who is designated in an acting capacity is entitled to the
difference in salary between his regular position and the higher position to which he was
designated.

Held:
No. Since the governor has no power to appoint him to the position of acting
assistant provincial treasurer, such power being lodged with the President or the
Secretary of Finance, his designation to such position by the governor confers him no
right to claim the difference in salaries and allowances to the position occupied by him.
Assuming the governor has that power, the fact is that what was extended to Dimaandal
was designation and not an appointment. Designation and appointment are entirely
different concepts. While an appointment is the selection by the proper authority of an
individual who is to exercise the powers and functions of a given office, designation
merely connotes an imposition of additional duties, usually by law, upon a person
already in the public service by virtue of an earlier appointment. Designation is simply
the mere imposition of new or additional duties on the officer or employee to be
performed by him in a special manner. It does not entail payment of additional benefits
or grant upon the person so designated the right to claim the salary attached to the
position. As such, there being no appointment issued, designation does not entitle the
officer designated to receive the salary of the position. For the legal basis of an
employee’s right to claim the salary attached thereto is a duly issued and approved
appointment to the position.
The nature of petitioner’s designation and the absence of authority of the Governor
to authorize the payment of the additional salary and RATA without the appropriate
resolution from the Sangguniang Panlalawigan does not make him a de facto officer. A
de facto officer is defined as one who derives his appointment from one having colorable
authority to appoint, if the office is an appointive office, and whose appointment is valid
on its face. It is likewise defined as one who is in possession of an office, and is
discharging its duties under color of authority, by which is meant authority derived from
an appointment, however irregular or informal, so that the incumbent be not a mere
volunteer. Then a de facto officer is one who is in possession of an office in the open
exercise of its functions under color of an election or an appointment, even though such
election or appointment may be irregular. Menzon v. Petilla does not apply. In Menzon,
what was extended was an appointment unlike here which was only a designation. The
appointment in Menzon was with color of validity while here, there was none.