G.R. No. L-20701 April 27, 1967
MARIA L. VDA. DE MISA and MILAGROS MISA GUTIERREZ, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. NATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

On September 16, 1950, Nicolas Misa was suspended from his position as acting second assistant general manager of the Philippine Relief and Trade Rehabilitation Administration (PRATRA) due to pending criminal charges. On October 3, 1950, PRATRA was abolished and the Price Stabilization Corporation (PRISCO) was created. Nicolas Misa was acquitted of all criminal charges on June 9, 1952. PRISCO paid him his salary for the period from September 16 to October 2, 1950, the money value of his earned and unused vacation and sick leaves up to October 2, 1950, and a gratuity for his entire government service from July 29, 1946, to October 2, 1950. He later demanded payment from PRISCO, and subsequently from the National Marketing Corporation (NAMARCO) after PRISCO’s abolition, for his accrued salary and the money value of his leaves corresponding to the period of his suspension from September 16, 1950, to June 9, 1952. Both entities denied his claim. Nicolas Misa died on May 19, 1956. On June 1, 1961, his heirs filed a complaint for recovery of the claimed amounts, alleging NAMARCO was liable as the universal successor-in-interest of PRISCO, which in turn succeeded PRATRA. The Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed the complaint.

ISSUE

Whether the plaintiffs-appellants are entitled to recover from NAMARCO the accrued salary and the money value of earned leaves for Nicolas Misa during his suspension period after the abolition of PRATRA.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. First, upon the dissolution of PRATRA on October 3, 1950, Nicolas Misa was considered separated from the service. Section 12 of Executive Order 350 required personnel transferred from PRATRA to PRISCO to be reappointed within sixty days; not being reappointed, he was deemed separated. His status of suspension did not exempt him from this requirement. Second, by accepting and enjoying his gratuity pay for his entire period of government service, along with his salary and leave benefits up to October 2, 1950, he was estopped from contesting his separation from the service, and his heirs are bound by this estoppel. Third, the claim cannot be recovered from NAMARCO. While Executive Order 350 transferred PRATRA’s obligations to PRISCO, Republic Act 1345 ordained that the settlement of PRISCO’s assets and liabilities was to be handled by the Board of Liquidators, not by NAMARCO.