ADMIN

Atty. Bruce P. Rivera

CASE DIGEST

MONSANTO vs FACTORAN
170 SCRA 190
February 9, 1989
Requirements for Public Office
Disqualification p. 31 Carlo Cruz, The Law of Public Officers (2007)
FACTS: Salvacion A. Monsanto is an assistant city treasurer of Calbayog City.

She was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of committing the complex crime of estafa through
falsification of public documents.
She appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, such was not reversed.
She then duly filed a motion for reconsideration.
While the motion was pending, President Marcos granted her an absolute pardon.
Acting on the absolute pardon granted her, she wished to be reinstated to her position as assistant
city treasurer. Her request by processed by the Ministry of Finance.
The Ministry granted her request for reinstatement. However, it shall take effect only right after her
pardon. She was also reminded to pay the indemnification required of her by the Sandiganbayan.
(P4, 892.50)
This pissed her off. She said that she should be reinstated effectively starting from the date of her
suspension (August 1, 1982) and not from the effectivity of the absolute pardon (April 17, 1985 ).
Also, she does not want to pay her penalty for she understands that being granted the absolute
pardon also removed her legal obligation to pay her penalties.
The Ministry of Finance forwarded her concern to the Office of the President.
The Office of the President replied through Deputy Executive Secretary Fulgencio S. Factoran.
Factoran held that both the Ministry of Finance and Ms. Monsnato are wrong. Factoran held that:
1. She cannot be automatically reinstated. ONLY acquittal and NOT PARDON can
give rise to such effect. She must secure reappointment.
2. She is still liable for the civil liability and she still must pay.
This, of course, super pissed Ms. Monsanto because what the eff, she was granted absolute pardon,
hence, she invoked the power of the Supreme Court to decide on the matter.
ISSUE: Being a public officer granted the absolute pardon, can she be automatically reinstated to
her old position without need for reappointment?
RULING: SUPER NOPE.

ADMIN
Atty. Bruce P. Rivera
CASE DIGEST

NO automatic reinstatement whatsoever is to take effect. Upon conviction of Estafa, absolute

disqualification or ineligibility from public office forms part of the punishment. Upon her absolute
pardon, this particular disability was removed. So, she can apply for reappointment to the same
position that she lost because she was convicted.
The pardon only removed her disqualification from public office. It cannot go beyond that. To regain
her former post as assistant city treasurer, she must re-apply and undergo the usual procedure
required for a new appointment.
The court stressed that upon her application that in considering her qualifications and suitability for
the public post, the facts constituting her offense must be and should be evaluated and taken into
account to determine ultimately whether she can once again be entrusted with public funds.

Having accepted the pardon, Monsanto is deemed to have abandoned her appeal and her unreversed conviction
by the Sandiganbayan assumed the character of finality.
Quotable quote #1: The very essence of a pardon is forgiveness or remission of guilt. Pardon implies guilt. It
does not erase the fact of the commission of the crime and the conviction thereof. It does not wash out the
moral stain. It involves forgiveness and not forgetfulness.
Quotable quote #2: The very act of forgiveness implies the commission of wrong, and that wrong has been
established by the most complete method known to modern civilization. Pardons may relieve from the
disability of fines and forfeitures attendant upon a conviction, but they cannot erase the stain of bad character,
which has been definitely fixed.

She was also made to pay her share because civil liability may only be extinguished by the same causes
recognized in the Civil Code, namely: payment, loss of the thing due, remission of the debt, merger of the rights
of creditor and debtor, compensation and novation. Hence, she must pay.

ADMIN
Atty. Bruce P. Rivera
CASE DIGEST

RODRIGUEZ vs TAN
91 Phil 724
August 7, 1952
De Facto Officers
Requisite for De Facto Officership
2.Color of Title p. 55 Carlo Cruz, The Law of Public Officers (2007)

FACTS: Carlos Tan and Eulogio Rodriguez were candidates for Senator during the 1947 election.
Carlos Tan was declared one of the winning senatorial candidates.
The 1947 Philippine election was tainted with massive electoral fraud. Eight of the 24 seats in the
Senate were contested. Eulogio Rodriguez contested Carlos Tans win.
Eulogio Rodriguez filed an election protest and won. He unseated Carlos Tan and duly replaced him
as senator.
Upon winning the protest, he filed a case praying for Carlos Tan to pay the aggregate sum of
P18,400 as salaries and allowances, and the sum of P35,524.55 as damages for usurping the office
of Senator of the Philippines which rightfully belongs to him from December 30, 1947, to December
27, 1949.
Carlos Tan declines to pay for he was a de facto officer and was therefore entitled to the salariries
and allowances that he received while in service.
ISSUE: Can Senator Eulogio Rodriguez claim from Carlos Tan all the salaries and allowances that
were supposedly his given that he was the true winning candidate?
RULING: NOPE.
Senator Rodriguez cannot claim from Carlos Tan for Carlos Tan was a de facto officer.
A candidate proclaimed in an election irregularly held will be a de facto officer before the nullification
of the election as such election will give him color or title to the office from which he is ultimately
unseated. Being proclaimed in an election even if there was cheating, made Carlos Tan a de facto
officer for it granted him the color of title.
As per the Supreme Court, there is no question that the defendant acted as a de facto officer during
the time he held the office of Senator. He was one of the candidates of the Liberal Party in the
elections of November 11, 1947, and was proclaimed as one of those who had been elected by the
Commission on Elections, and thereafter he took the oath of office and immediately entered into the
performance of the duties of the position.

ADMIN
Atty. Bruce P. Rivera
CASE DIGEST

Having been thus duly proclaimed as Senator and having assumed office as required by law, it
cannot be disputed that defendant is entitled to the compensation, emoluments and allowances
which our Constitution provides for the. This is simple justice. The emolument must go to the person
who rendered the service unless the contrary is provided. There is no allegation in the complaint that
Tan was involved in the massive electoral cheating. This is the policy and the rule that has been
followed consistently in this jurisdiction in connection with positions held by persons who had been
elected thereto but were later ousted as a result of an election protest. The right of the persons
elected to compensation during their incumbency has always been recognized.
Hence, Senator Rodriguez cannot claim from Tan. There was no usurpation for he was a de facto
officer who duly earned his salaries and allowances due to the color of title granted him.
Sen. Rodriguez may have been the true winner but the principle of no work, no pay still applies to
him. Baahahahahahh~