Dimaandal V. Coa

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.