CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY .
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 83896
- Promulgated: 1991-02-22
- Ponente: Fernan, J.
Doctrine
An ex-officio position that is actually and in legal contemplation part of the principal office does not entitle the official to additional compensation because such services are covered by the compensation attached to the principal office.
A de facto officer who in good faith possessed and discharged the duties of an office is legally entitled to the emoluments of the office and may recover salary and other compensation on equitable grounds.
When an executive order is found constitutionally infirm, affected officials must relinquish offices or employment acquired by virtue of that order.
Facts
This decision is an En Banc resolution in G.R. No. 83896, decided 22 February 1991.
The Court found Executive Order No. 284 constitutionally infirm and ordered specified Cabinet secretaries to relinquish their other government offices or employment, including positions in GOCCs and subsidiaries.
While occupying the questioned positions, the named respondents may be considered de facto officers entitled to emoluments for actual services rendered.
The Court expressly held in the negative on the principal legal question presented.
Issues
Whether Executive Order No. 284 is constitutionally valid.
Whether the respondents must relinquish their other offices or employment under the Court's ruling.
Whether respondents who served under the invalidated order are entitled to emoluments as de facto officers.
Ruling
The Court ruled in the negative on the principal question and declared Executive Order No. 284 null and void; the petitions were granted and EO No. 284 set aside.
The Court ordered respondents Secretary Factoran, Secretary Santos, Secretary Ramos, Secretary Bengzon and Secretary Carague to immediately relinquish their other offices or employment as defined, including in GOCCs and subsidiaries.
Subject to the stated qualification, respondents who served under the invalidated order as de facto officers are legally entitled to emoluments for actual services rendered.
Keywords
G.R. No. 83896, G.R. No. 83815, Executive Order No. 284, unconstitutionality, Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, dual or multiple positions, extraordinary writs of prohibition and mandamus, temporary restraining order, Opinion No. 73, series of 1987, Section 7, par. (2), Article IX-B, appointive official, Department of Justice DOJ Opinion No. 73, series of 1987, DOJ Opinion No. 129, series of 1987, DOJ Opinion No. 155, series of 1988, primary position, secretary, section, executive order, article vii, allowed