This is an appeal  from  the decision of  the  Court of First Instance of Quezon City, dismissing plaintiff's complaint for the recovery of accrued salaries,  first taken to the  Court  of Appeals, and later certified to us for  the reason that  said appeal  involved only questions of law. The facts are simple and Clear, and as found by the trial court may be briefly  stated as follows:

The Rural Progress Administration  (later referred to as  Administration)  is a public corporation created  for the purpose of acquiring landed estates through  purchase, expropriation or lease, and later sub-letting or sub-leasing the same to  tenants or occupants.  The officials and employees of the Administration  may be considered as civil service employees embraced in the classified service.   Sometime in 1947, one  Aurelio  R. Pefia, then comptroller of the Administration and performing duties of auditor in representation of the Auditor General recommended  to the Board of Directors of the Administration that for purposes of  economy  municipal  treasurers  be appointed   agent-collectors of the Administration, and this recommendation was adopted by the Board of Director.  Thereafter,  Faustino Aguilar, then manager of the Administration, prepared the appointment for the post of agent-collector on a parttime basis in favor of plaintiff-appellant Braulio Quimson, with compensation of  P720 per annum, the appointment to take effect  upon assumption of duty.  At  the  time, Quimson was deputy provincial treasurer and  municipal treasurer  of Caloocan, Rizal.   Defendant-appellee Roman Ozaeta who by reason  of his office of Secretary  of Justice was. acting as ...Chairman of the Board of Directors, signed the appointment and forwarded the papers to the President through the Secretary  of Finance for approval.  Without waiting for the said approval Quimson assumed his position on May 6, 1948 and rendered service as agent-collector of the Administration until October 21,  1949, inclusive'," when he was informed that Because of the disapproval of his appointment, his services were considered terminated. There were several objections to his, appointment,'' among them that of the  Auditor  General on  the ground  that since Quimson was  deputy  provincial  treasurer and municipal treasurer of Caloocan; his  additional compensation as  agent-collector  would contravene  the  Constitutional prohibition  against  double  compensation.  The  Commissioner of Civil Service said that he would offer no objection to the  additional  compensation  of  Quimson  as  agent collector provided  it was authorized in a special provision exempting the case from the inhibition against the payment of extra compensation in accordance with section 259. of the Revised Administrative Code.  In this connection, it may be stated that this section of the Administrative Code provides that in the absence of special provision, no officer or employee in any branch  of. the Government service shall  receive additional  compensation  on  account of  the discharge of duties pertaining to another or to the performance  of public service   of  whatever  nature.   Faustino Aguilar as  manager of the Administration asked for the reconsideration of the ruling  of the Auditor General, alleging that the appointment of the plaintiff was  for reasons of economy and efficiency, but the Auditor General denied the  request stating  that reasons  of economy  and efficiency are not valid grounds for evading the  constitutional prohibition against additional compensation  in  the absence of a law specifically authorizing such compensation. So, the  services of Quimson  as agent-collector of  the Administration were terminated.  But R. Gonzales Lloret, then manager of the Administration on October 18,  1949, inquired from the auditor of the Administration whether Quimson could be  paid for the period of actual service rendered by him from May 10, 1948, and the said auditor gave the opinion that it could not be done for the reason that in  his opinion the appointment extended  to  Quimson was clearly illegal  and the Administration  may not be obliged  to pay him for the services rendered since it was a violation of section 3,  Article XII, of the Constitution prohibiting  double  compensation.  At the  same  time he expressed the opinion that under section 691 of the Revised Administrative Code the appointing official who made  the illegal appointment should be made liable, for the  payment of  salary of  the appointee,  and consequently,  plaintiff should claim his salary for services rendered against said appointing officer. . It is highly possible that this opinion was what induced and prompted Quimson to file the present case against Roman Ozaeta who, as Chairman of the Board, signed his appointment, and the members of the said Board, namely: Faustino Aguilar, Vicente Fragante, Roman Fer- nandez and Pedro Magsalin.   The. action was initiated in the Justice of the Peace  Court which dismissed the complaint.  On  appeal  to the  Court of First  Instance of Quezon  City,  as already stated,  the  complaint was also dismissed.

For purposes of reference we  are reproducing section 691 of the Revised  Administrative Code, to wit:

"Sec. 691. Payment of person employed contrary to law. Liability of chief  of  office. No  person  employed' in the  classified  service contrary to law or in  violation of the civil service rules shall be entitled to receive  pay from the  Government; but the chief of the bureau or office responsible for such unlawful  employment shall be personally liable for the pay that would have accrued had the employment been  lawful,  and  the  disbursing officer  shall  make payment to the employee of such amount from the salary of the officers so  liable."

In our opinion, the present appeal can be resolved without much difficulty.   Section 691 of the Administrative  Code above reproduced refers and applies to unlawful employment and not to unlawful compensation.   The appointment or employment  of plaintiff-appellant  Quimson  as agent-collector was not in  itself  unlawful  because there is no incompatibility between  said appointment and his employment as deputy provincial treasurer and municipal treasurer.   In fact, he was appointed agent-collector  by reason of his office, being a municipal treasurer.  There is no legal objection  to a government  official occupying two government offices and  performing the functions of  both as long as there is no incompatibility.  Clerks of court are sometimes appointed  or designated, aa provincial  sheriffs. Municipal Treasurers, like plaintiff are often appointed and designated as deputy provincial treasurer.  The  Department Secretaries are often,designated to act as  Chairman or members of Board of Directors of government corporations.  The objection  or prohibition refers to double  compensation and not to double appointments and performance of functions of more  than one office.

According to law, under certain circumstances, the President  may authorize double  compensation in some cases, such as government officials acting as members  with  compensation in government examining boards like  the bar examinations, or department  secretaries acting as members of Board of Directors  of  government corporations, and in such cases the prohibition against double compensation is not observed.   This  undoubtedly, was the reason  why the appointment  of Quimson had to be  coursed  through different offices like the Department of Finance, the  Civil Service Commission, and the Office of the Auditor General to the President  for approval.  If the President approves the double compensation, well and good.   The appointee whose appointment may then be regarded as valid from the beginning could receive extra  compensation.  If it is disapproved, then  the appointment will have to be withdrawn or cancelled, unless of course,  the appointee was willing  to serve without  compensation,  in which  case there could be no  valid objection.  This is another proof that the appointment of Quimson was not illegal or unlawful.  It was only the double compensation that was subject to objection.  The trouble was that plaintiff herein assumed office without  waiting  for  the result  of the action to be' taken upon his appointment and compensation by the President and the  different offices which the appointment had to go through.

Furthermore,  Quimson would appear to have  assumed office without notifying the  official  who  appointed him, namely, Roman Ozaeta.  Plaintiff, therefore, took the risk or hazard of not being paid  for any  service that he may render in the meantime.  His counsel now contends that the appointing official should  have  known that double compensation was prohibited by law and therefore he should not  have appointed Quimson as  agent-collector.  That  is seemingly a plausible  stand.  But it should be borne in mind that there are  exceptions  to the prohibition;  that the very  comptroller of the  Administration, representing the  Auditor  General,  recommended  the  appointment of municipal treasurers, like the plaintiff; as agent-collectors,. and so  defendant  Ozaeta and the other  members  of the Board of Directors may have believed that the Chief Executive might  approve plaintiff's  appointment.  Besides,  it may also be said that  Quimson himself; a Deputy Provincial Treasurer and Municipal Treasurer, a financial officer , expected  to be  tersed  in  government disbursements and payments of salaries and  compensation should  have 'also known  and undoubtedly he  knew about  that prohibition against double compensation.  He should  have known that his appointment had to go over or through several obstacles and hazards, but he took the risk and began serving, as agent-collector  before his, appointment was approved.   We are afraid that he has no one to blame but himself

Finding no reversible error in the decision appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Parás, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B, L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.