G.R. No. L-18637; February 28, 1963
Ceferino Noromor, petitioner-appellee, vs. The Municipality of Oras, Samar, et al., respondents-appellants.

FACTS

Ceferino Noromor was appointed as a policeman for Oras, Samar, in August 1950. In December 1950, he was charged with frustrated murder, leading to his suspension from office in January 1951 and the stoppage of his salary. He was initially convicted of a lesser offense but was ultimately acquitted by the Court of Appeals in July 1954. Following his acquittal, the mayor reinstated him to his position in September 1954.
After reinstatement, Noromor demanded payment of his back salaries covering the period of his suspension from January 1951 to August 1954. The municipal treasurer prepared the necessary voucher, but payment was withheld due to the lack of a corresponding appropriation in the municipal budget. Noromor subsequently filed a mandamus petition to compel the municipal officials to approve a supplemental budget and pay his claim.

ISSUE

The core legal issue is whether Noromor, a non-civil service eligible policeman, is entitled under Republic Act No. 557 to receive his full salary for the period of his suspension, which was prompted by criminal charges that resulted in his acquittal.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Noromor, affirming his right to full back pay. The Court anchored its decision on the clear and mandatory language of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 557 . This provision states that any suspended member of a municipal police force, who is later acquitted of the criminal charges, “shall be entitled to payment of the entire salary he failed to receive during his suspension.”
The Court rejected the municipality’s argument that this benefit applies only to civil service eligibles. It emphasized that the statutory text makes no distinction between eligible and non-eligible policemen concerning the payment of salaries during suspension upon acquittal. The legal question presented was narrowly confined to the right to back salaries during an illegal suspension, not to the right to reinstatement or reappointment. The Court reasoned that had Noromor not been wrongly suspended, he would have continued in service and received his salary; his non-eligibility was irrelevant to this specific claim. Furthermore, the Court noted his original appointment lacked a fixed time limit and had not been disapproved by the Civil Service Commission, indicating his continuous lawful tenure until the suspension. Any ambiguity in the law was resolved in favor of the employee. The decision of the lower court was affirmed.