G.R. No. 191644 - DENNIS A.B. FUNA, VS. ACTING SECRETARY OF JUSTICE ALBERTO C. AGRA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CONCURRENT CAPACITIES AS ACTING SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND AS ACTING SOLICITOR GENERAL, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY LEANDRO R. MENDOZA, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court

Ruling

Accordingly, he was not to be considered as a de jure officer for the entire period of his tenure as the Acting Secretary of Justice. A de jure officer is one who is deemed, in all respects, legally appointed and qualified and whose term of office has not expired. [49] That notwithstanding, Agra was a de facto officer during his tenure as Acting Secretary of Justice. In Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary , [50] the Court said: During their tenure in the questioned positions, respondents may be considered de facto officers and as such entitled to emoluments for actual services rendered. It has been held that "in cases where there is no de jure , officer, a de facto officer, who, in good faith has had possession of the office and has discharged the duties pertaining thereto, is legally entitled to the emoluments of the office, and may in an appropriate action recover the salary, fees and other compensations attached to the office. This doctrine is, undoubtedly, supported on equitable grounds since it seems unjust that the public should benefit by the services of an officer de facto and then be freed from all liability to pay any one for such services. Any per diem, allowances or other emoluments received by the respondents by virtue of actual services rendered in the questioned positions may therefore be retained by them. A de facto officer is one who derives his appointment from one having colorable authority to appoint, if the office is an appointive office, and whose appointment is valid on its face. [51] He may also be one who is in possession of an office, and is discharging its duties under color of authority, by which is meant authority derived from an appointment, however irregular or informal, so that the incumbent is not a mere volunteer. [52] Consequently, the acts of the de facto officer are just as valid for all purposes as those of a de jure officer, in so far as the public or third persons who are interested therein are concerned. [53] In order to be clear, therefore, the Court holds that all official actions of Agra as a de facto Acting Secretary of Justice, assuming that was his later designation, were presumed valid, binding and effective as if he was the officer legally appointed and qualified for the office. [54] This clarification is necessary in order to protect the sanctity of the dealings by the public with persons whose ostensible authority emanates from the State. [55] Agras official actions covered by this clarification extend to but are not limited to the promulgation of resolutions on petitions for review filed in the Department of Justice, and the issuance of department orders, memoranda and circulars relative to the prosecution of criminal cases. WHEREFORE , the Court GRANTS the petition for certiorari and prohibition; ANNULS AND VOIDS the designation of Hon. Alberto C. Agra as the Acting Secretary of Justice in a concurrent capacity with his position as the Acting Solicitor General for being unconstitution