UP Law F2021 050 & 075 Tuanda v.

Sandiganbayan
PubOff De Facto & De Jure Officers; 1995 Kapunan, J.
(#050) Requisites of de facto officership | (#075)
Effects of acts of de facto officer

SUMMARY

Estrellanes and Binaohan were designated by the Local Government Secretary as sectoraal representatives
for the Sangguniang Bayan of Jimalalud, Negros Oriental. Thereafter, Estrellanes and Binaohan were denied
payment of salaries by Mayor Tuanda (among others) on the ground that their designation was in violation
of the (old) Local Government Code. Tuanda filed a civil case for the declaration of nullity of such
designations (which is pending before the CA). Meanwhile, Estrellanes and Binaohan filed a criminal case
against Tuanda et al. for refusal to pay their salaries (before the Sandiganbayan). Tuanda filed a motion to
suspend proceedings in the Sandiganbayan due to a prejudicial question in the civil case before the CA.
Sandiganbayan denied the motion, holding that even if the designations were declared invalid, Estrellanes
and Binaohan are considered de facto officers acting on the basis of apparently valid appointments. This
reversed by the SC, ruling that the elements of a prejudicial question were present, and that a finding that
the designations are invalid does not necessarily mean that Estrellanes and Binaohan are considered de
facto officers, because there are only 3 specific elements for a person to be considered a de facto officer.

FACTS1

 On February 9, 1989, Delia Estrellanes (“Estrellanes”) and Bartolome Binaohan (“Binaohan”)

(collectively, “respondents”) were designated as sectoral representatives for Industrial Labor and
Agricultural Labor, respectively, for the Sangguniang Bayan of Jimalalud, Negros Oriental, by then-
Local Government Secretary Luis Santos.
 Thereafter, in a petition filed with the Office of the President by Jimalalud Mayor Reynaldo Tuanda
(“Tuanda”) (along with former Vice-Mayor Faburada and members of the Sangguniang Bayan of
Jimalalud), Tuanda and the other petitioners sought for review and recall of the designations of
Estrellanes and Binaohan.
 But, this petition was DENIED on March 20, 1989, and enjoined Tuanda to recognize
Estrellanes and Binaohan as sectoral representatives.
 On May 4, 1990, Estrellanes and Binaohan filed a petition for mandamus with the Negros Oriental
RTC, for recognition as members of the Sangguniang Bayan.
 But, this was DISMISSED on July 23, 1991.
 [CIVIL CASE] On June 20, 1991, Tuanda et al., filed an action with the Dumaguete RTC to declare
null and void the designations of Estrellanes and Binaohan as sectoral representatives.
 [CRIMINAL CASE] On July 21, 1991, Tuanda et al., were charged before the Sandiganbayan for
violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), for “causing undue
injury to [Estrellanes and Binaohan]…through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross
inexcusable negligence…”2 by “refusing to pay despite demand…their per diems, salaries, and other
benefits” amounting to around P200k collectively.
 [CRIMINAL CASE] On September 9, 1991, Tuanda et al. filed with the Sandiganbayan a Motion for
Suspension of the Proceedings on the ground that a prejudicial question exists pending before the
Dumaguete RTC.
 [CIVIL CASE] DUMAGUETE RTC: On January 16, 1992, the Dumaguete RTC ruled in favor of Tuanda
and DECLARED NULL AND VOID the designations of Estrellanes and Binaohan as sectoral
representatives, for being in violation of Section 146(2) of BP 337 (old Local Government Code).
 This provision stipulates that before the President or Local Government Secretary may
appoint members of the local legislative bodies to represent the Industrial and Agricultural
Labor Sectors, there must first be a determination made by the Sanggunian itself that the
said sectors are of a sufficient number in the city/municipality to warrant representation,

1
Please note that I underlined each of the characters’ names at the first instance that each appeared in the facts; dates, periods, and
article numbers (along with some emphasized facts) are in bold letters; and documents are in italics.
2
The portion of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 applicable to the case
 after consultation with associations and persons belonging to the sector concerned.
Jurisprudence has interpreted this determination to be a condition sine qua non to a valid
appointment or designation.
 Applying jurisprudence, the RTC nullified the designations of Estrellanes and Binaohan
because (1) there was no certification by the Sangguniang Bayan that the sectors concerned
are of such a sufficient number to warrant representation and (2) there was no consultation
with the associations and persons belonging to the Industrial and Agricultural Labor sectors.
 [CIVIL CASE] CA: Estrellanes and Binaohan appealed the RTC decision to the CA, where that case
was still pending at the time of the promulgation of this case.
 [CRIMINAL CASE] SANDIGANBAYAN: Meanwhile, on February 17, 1992, the Sandiganbayan DENIED
the Motion for Suspension of Proceedings on the following grounds:
1) Estrellanes and Binaohan have been rendering services on the basis of their respective
appointments. Because their appointments enjoy the presumption of regularity, they are
entitled to the salaries;
2) Even if the Dumaguete RTC should decide that their appointments are void, they are
considered de facto public officers acting on the basis of apparently valid appointments,
before the judicial declaration of nullity. Because they rendered actual services, they are
entitled to the salaries;
3) In other words, regardless of the decision of the Dumaguete RTC (on w/n their appointment
was valid), Estrellanes and Binaohan were entitled to their salaries.
 A Motion for Reconsideration was filed with the Sandiganbayan, in light of the decision of the
Dumaguete RTC, but was also DENIED.
 Hence, Tuanda et al. filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Supreme Court, assailing
this denial by the Sandiganbayan.

RATIO

W/N the validity of the designations of Estrellanes and Binaohan (which is pending before the CA)
is a prejudicial question which justifies the suspension of the proceedings in the criminal case (in
Sandiganbayan)—YES

Article 36 of the Civil Code provides that “[p]rejudicial questions…must be decided before any criminal
prosecution may be instituted or may proceed…” The rationale is to avoid two conflicting decisions.
Meanwhile, Rule 111, Section 5 of the (old) Rules of Court provides the elements of a prejudicial
question:
(1) the CIVIL action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the CRIMINAL
action: and
(2) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.

SC: “The prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the court [in this case,
Sandiganbayan] but the jurisdiction to try and resolve the question must be lodged in another court or
tribunal [in this case, Dumaguete RTC]. It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime
but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused…”

All the elements of a prejudicial question are present:

(1) The CIVIL action (to declare null and void the designation of Estrellanes and Binaohan as sectoral
representatives) and the CRIMINAL action (charging Tuanda et al. for not paying Estrellanes and
Binaohan their salaries, etc. as sectoral representatives) have facts and issues which are closely
related; Tuanda’s refusal to pay the salaries was anchored on the assertion that the said
designations were null and void for being contrary to Section 146(2) of BP 337; and,
(2) Should the CA uphold the Dumaguete RTC’s decision declaring null and void the designations of
Estrellanes and Binaohan, the criminal charges against Tuanda et al. would have “no leg to stand
on” because there would be, in the first place, no obligation on Tuanda’s part to pay (or a right on
Estrellanes and Binaohan’s part to demand such payment of) salaries, per diems, and other
benefits.
∴ Thus, the legality or validity of the designation of Estrellanes and Binaohan as sectoral
representatives is a prejudicial question to the criminal case filed against Tuanda et al. Hence, the
proceedings in the criminal case must be suspended.

W/N Estrellanes and Binaohan are entitled to compensation for actual services rendered, even in
the event that their designations are nullified—NO3

From the start, the designations as sectoral representatives of Estrellanes and Binaohan have been
challenged by Tuanda et al. They began with a petition filed with the Office of the President, copies of
which were received by Estrellanes and Binaohan on February 26, 1989, or just 8 days after they took
their oath of office.

∴ Hence, the claim of Estrellanes and Binaohan that they have actually rendered services as
sectoral representatives has not been established.

W/N the Sandiganbayan is correct in holding that, even in the event that their designation is held
invalid, Estrellanes and Binaohan may still be entitled to compensation for services actually
rendered as de facto public officers—NO

SC: “The conditions and elements of de facto officership are the following:
(1) There must be a de jure office;
(2) There must be color of right or general acquiescence by the public; and
(3) There must be actual physical possession of the office in good faith.
One can qualify as a de facto officer only if all the aforestated elements are presents (sic). There can
be no de facto officer where there is no de jure office, although there may be a de facto officer in a
de jure office.”4

[Digester’s Note: The SC couldn’t resolve whether Estrellanes and Binaohan are de facto officers, because
to do so would preempt the resolution of the civil case by the Court of Appeals. The SC, in rejecting the
Sandiganbayan’s ratio, is saying that if the designation is finally declared invalid, this does not
automatically and ipso facto mean that Estrellanes and Binaohan are de facto officers, because what
would determine this is whether the 3 elements mentioned have been satisfied. Also, the SC is probably
implying, as can be gleaned from the second paragraph, that there may not even be a de jure office.]

FALLO

WHEREFORE, the resolution dated 17 February 1992 and orders dated 19 August 1992 and 13 May 1993 of
respondent Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 16936 are hereby SET ASIDE. Respondent Sandiganbayan
is enjoined from proceeding with the arraignment and trial of petitioners in Criminal Case No. 16936
pending final resolution of CA-G.R. CV No. 36769. SO ORDERED.

3
The full text of the decision contains only 1 paragraph for this issue.
4
This quote, verbatim, is the only discussion of the SC on this issue.