CESAR C. ALTAREJOS, PETITIONER, VS. TEODORO K. MOLO, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, RESPONDENT.

Original action for mandamus
to compel respondent, Teodoro K. Molo,
as Secretary of the Commission on Appointments, or whoever may later hold said
office, to issue a certificate of con­firmation of petitioner’s appointment as
Provincial Assessor of Masbate.  Petitioner, likewise, seeks to recover
damages, in ad­dition to the costs and such other relief as may be proper.

On July 24, 1964,
petitioner, Cesar C. Altarejos, was given by the
President an ad interim appointment as Provincial Assessor for
the Province of Masbate.  Soon thereafter, or on August 1, 1964, he took his oath of office as
such.  Submitted to the Commission on
Appointments – hereinafter referred to as the Commission – for confirmation,
during the regular session of Congress in 1965, said appointment was confirmed
by the Commission on May 19, 1965.  Later, however, on the same date, Congressman
Jose M. Aldeguer, as Member of the Commission, filed
with its Secretary, respondent herein, a motion for reconsideration of the
action thus taken on said appointment. 
When the Commission resumed its session, the next day, and petitioner’s
appointment was taken up, Senator Gil Puyat moved to
defer action thereon.  Subsequently
thereto, that same day, Senator Francisco Rodrigo moved “that all
pending motions for reconsideration and any and all motions for
reconsideration that might be filed within the reglementary
period be laid on the table.” There being no objection thereto, the
chairman of the Commission ruled that the motion was approved “unless a
special session is called tomorrow.”

Congress adjourned sine die on May 20, 1965, but it held a special session from
May 21 to June 24, 1965.  On May 27, 1965, Congressman Aldeguer addressed to herein respondent, as Secretary of
the Commission, a communication withdrawing the motion, filed by him on May 19,
1965, for the reconsideration of the confirmation of petitioner’s
aforementioned appointment and stating that respond­ent “may, therefore,
issue the corresponding certificate of confirmation” in petitioner’s
favor.  This notwithstanding, respondent
failed or refused to issue the certificate of confirmation.  Hence, the present action for mandamus.

Respondent maintains that the motion for reconsideration filed by
Congressman Aldeguer, on May 19, 1965, had the effect of recall­ing the
confirmation of petitioner’s appointment, and that, accordingly, said
appointment should be considered by-passed when Congress adjourned sine die
on May 20, 1965, and,
hence, non-existent there­after.

This pretense is devoid of merit. 
Respondent’s theory would give to the mere filing of a motion for
reconsideration the effect which it would have if the motion were approved,
and, hence, would dispense with the necessity of such approval, for
which the concurrence of a majority of the members present is necessary.  It is inconsistent with Rule 21 of the
Revised Rules of the Commission, reading:

“x x x
Resolution of the Commission on any ap­pointment may be reconsidered on motion
by a member presented not more than one (1) day after their approval.  If a majority of the members present
concur to grant a reconsideration, the appointment shall be reopened
and submitted anew to the Commission. 
Any motion to re­consider the vote on any appointment may be laid on the
table, and this shall be a final disposition of such a motion.”^[1]

Pursuant to this provision, the vote of a majority of the members
present in favor of the motion for reconsideration is necessary to
“reopen” the appointment – and, hence, to “recall” its
confirmation – and to require a resubmission of the appoint­ment for
confirmation.  Indeed, before the
Commission adjourned on May 20, 1965, a member thereof, then Congressman Wenceslao Lagumbay, inquired
about the effect of a motion for reconsider­ation “if not acted upon”
by the Commission.  Its chairman ans­wered:
“the action of the chamber is suspended and the confirm­ation of
the chamber that was originally voted upon and approved is also considered suspended.”
In other words, said confirmation is merely “suspended”, not
“recalled”.

Moreover, before the adjournment sine die of the
regular session of Congress in 1965, and of the session of the Commission, the
same had approved a motion of Senator Rodrigo to the effect that “all
pending motions for reconsideration” – including, there­fore, the motion
for reconsideration of Congressman Aldeguer – be
“laid on the table.” Pursuant to Hinds:

“Without any express rule, but by long practice, the House has
given to the motion (to lay on the table) a use different from this.  It is now the motion by which the House puts
away finally, without debate, a bill, a motion, an appeal, or other
matter.  A bill once laid on the table by
vote of the House is practically passed on adversely.  x x x “1

This view has been incorporated into the above-mentioned Rule 21,
which provides that “x x x
Any motion to reconsider the vote on any appointment may be laid on the
table, and this shall be a final disposition of such a
motion.”2
In fact, construing this Rule, we held in Quimsing v.
Tajanglangit:3

“x x x
Under the aforequoted Section 21 of the rules of said
body, the ‘laying on the table’ of the motion shall be the final disposition  thereof. 
In other words, no further action need be taken by the Commission
thereon.  It is as if no motion for
reconsideration was filed at all.4

At any rate, Congressman Aldeguer’s
motion for re­consideration was actually withdrawn by him.  Hence, no matter how we may look at it, we
cannot escape the conclu­sion that petitioner’s appointment as Provincial
Assessor of Masbate has been confirmed by the
Commission on Appointments.

This conclusion is, likewise, borne out by the minutes of the
session of the Commission on May 21,
1964, from which we quote:

“SEN. ALMENDRAS:
Mr. Chairman, be­fore we adjourn, Mr. Chairman, I know this is the last day of
meeting of the Commission, but I would like to know the ruling of the Chair,
Mr. Chairman, as far as the motions for reconsider­ation are concerned.  x x x I would like a ruling of the Chair, Mr. Chairman, if the
Commission will adjourn tonight, what will be the status of those motions for
reconsideration.

“CHAIRMAN: In case
of an adjournment sine die, the motions for reconsideration are con­sidered as
not approved and therefore the motions for reconsideration are not valid nor
of any effect whatsoever.1

“SEN. ALMENDRAS:
Do I need to under­stand, Mr. Chairman, if the motion for reconsideration could
not be acted, the confirmation stands?

“CHAIRMAN: That
is the ruling of the Chair in accordance with Section 22, Rules of the
Commis­sion.

“MR. OSIAS: Mr.
Chairman –

“CHAIRMAN: The
Gentleman from La Union.

“SEN. OSIAS: Mr.
Chairman, if I may be per­mitted by the Gentleman from Davao
that does not preclude the motion for reconsideration to be revived if and when
we meet again, if ever we meet again.

“SEN. ALMENDRAS:
That will be another Com­mission meeting, Mr. Chairman.  But what I mean on this particular meeting of
the Commission inasmuch as we are going to adjourn tonight.

“CHAIRMAN: The
ruling of the Chair is reiter­ated.  In
case of an adjournment sine die, the period for filing the motion for reconsideration
having expired, under Sec. 22, then the motion for reconsideration not having
been acted upon is not approved and, therefore, has no effect whatsoever.  The confirmation, therefore, will stand.

x                                                        x                                                          x                                                        x

“SEN. RODRIGO: x x x Now, Mr. President in order
to clarify more the ruling of the Chair may I first read the pertinent portion
of Sec­tion 22 of our Rules: Notice of confirmation or dis­approval of an
appointment shall not be sent to the President of the Philippines while a
motion for recon­sideration is pending. 
Do I take it Mr. Chairman that after the adjournment of this Session all
motions for reconsideration which were presented during this Session will no
longer be considered pending?

“CHAIRMAN: Not
having been acted upon they are no longer pending.

“SEN. RODRIGO: And
therefore all confirm­ations approved during this Session even if motions for
reconsiderations were presented during this Session but were not acted upon upon adjournment will be sent to the President of the Philippines
as having been con­firmed by this Commission?

“CHAIRMAN: Under
Section 22, the Secretary of the Commission can send notice of confirmation to
the Republic of the Philippines.

“SEN. RODRIGO: Thank
you very much Mr. Chairman.”1

It is urged that petitioner has no cause of action for mandamus against respondent herein, the
former having allegedly failed to exhaust the appropriate administrative
remedy, which, respondent says, was to appeal from his action to the chairman
of the Commission.  This argument is,
however, untenable, for: (1) there is no law or rule prescribing said appeal to
the chairman of the Commission on Appointments1 and (2) the principle re­quiring
exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply when the issue is purely
one of law, such as the one at bar.2

This notwithstanding, petitioner’s claim for damages cannot be
sustained, there being no proof of the actual damages allegedly suffered by
him,3
apart from the fact that respondent herein is sued in his official capacity4 and
that there is no evidence or allegation that he had acted in bad faith.5

Inasmuch as, pursuant to Section 6 of the Revised Rules of the
Commission, the Secretary thereof has, inter alia,
the duty “(c) to certify under his signature and the seal of the
Commission the resolutions and orders thereof,” respondent herein has the
ministerial duty to issue the certificate of confirmation prayed for by
petitioner herein, and is, accordingly, directed to comply with such duty,
without special pronouncement as to costs. 
Writ granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, Fernando, and Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Zaldivar, J., did not take part.

^[1]
Underscoring ours.

1
Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives, Vol. V, pp. 201-202.  Underscoring ours.

2
Underscoring ours.

3
L-19981,  February 29, 1964.

4
Underscoring ours.

1
Underscorings ours.

1
Underscoring ours.

1
Santos v. Moreno,
L-15829, December 4, 1967; Talisay Silay Milling Company,
Inc. v. Bunuan, L-16933, December 29, 1964.

2
Mitra v. Subido,
L-21691, September 15, 1967; Dauan v.
Secretary of Agriculture, L-19547, January 31, 1967; Abaya
v. Villegas, L-25641, December 17, 1966; Cariño
v. ACCFA, L-19808, September 29, 1966.

3 Raagas v. Traya, L-20081, February 27, 1968; Delfin
v. CAR, L-23348, March 14, 1967; Suntay-Tanjangco
v. Jovel­lanos, L-12332, June 30, 1960; Tomassi v. Villa-Abrille,
104 Phil. 310, 313-314.

4 Cariño v. ACCFA.,
L-19808, September 29, 1966.

5 Jaro v. Valencia,
L-19327, April 29, 1966.