G.R. No. 19981. February 29, 1964
GODOFREDO QUIMSING, PETITIONER, VS. EDUARDO TAJANGLANGIT, RESPONDENT.
BARRERA, J.:
restrain Eduardo Tajanglangit from occupying the position of Chief of
Police of Iloilo City to which petitioner allegedly had previously been
appointed and duly qualified and the functions of which he was actually
discharging. The facts of the case, as may be gathered from the
pleadings filed herein, are as follows:
On May 20, 1960, Godofredo Quimsing was designated Acting Chief of
Police of Iloilo City. On December 20, 1961, and while such incumbent
of the office, he was extended by then President Garcia an ad-interim
appointment to the same position. Quimsing took his oath of office
before the City Mayor of Iloilo on December 28, 1961, and continued
discharging the functions of Chief of Police of said City.
At the session of the Commission on Appointments on May 16, 1962,
the appointment of Quimsing, among others was confirmed. On the
following day, however, at the session of said body, Senator Puyat
moved for the reconsideration of all the appointments previously
confirmed, manifesting at the same time that said “motion for
reconsideration be laid on the table.” Furthermore, he moved for the
adjournment of the session of the Commission sine die. There being no objection, said motion was approved and the session was adjourned.
On June 11, 1962, President Macapagal designated Eduardo
Tajanglangit as acting Chief of Police of Iloilo City and the latter
took his oath and tried to discharge the functions of the office on
June 13, 1962. On July 12, 1962, the present petition was filed for the
reason already stated above.
Respondent Tajanglangit, in his answer, claimed among others, that petitioner’s ad-interim appointment was a nullity in view of the President’s Administrative Order No. 2, withdrawing, canceling, or recalling ad-interim appointments extended after December 13, 1961; and that the alleged confirmation of petitioner’s ad-interim
appointment by the Commission on Appointments did not also produce any
effect, because the same had been the subject of a motion for
reconsideration and no further action has been taken on said
appointment until the present time.
It is evident that respondent’s designation as Acting Chief of
Police of the City of Iloilo was made on the assumption that
petitioner’s occupancy thereof was illegal. This brings us to the
question of the validity and effect of the ad-interim
appointment extended to petitioner Quimsing on December 20, 1961 and
the confirmation thereof and subsequent action taken by the Commission
on Appointments.
Respondent Tajanglangit, in resisting the claim of petitioner
Quimsing, invokes the President’s Administrative Order No. 2, series of
1962 and the ruling of this Court in the Aytona vs. Castillo case. (G.R. No. L-19313, Jan. 19, 1962). In the various cases decided by this Court after the Aytona vs. Castillo case[1]
the matter of the validity of appointments made after December 13, 1961
by former President Garcia was considered not in the light of the said
Administrative Order No. 2 (which was never upheld by this Court), but
on the basis of the nature, character and merit of the individual
appointments and the particular circumstances surrounding the same. In
other words, this Court did not declare that and the ad-interim
appointments made by the outgoing President after December 13, 1961 are
invalid by the mere fact that the same were extended after said date,
nor they automatically come within the category of the “midnight”
appointments, the validity of which were doubted and which gave rise to
the ruling in the Aytona case cited by respondent.
In the present case, petitioner Quimsing admittedly had been
occupying the position in controversy, in an acting capacity since May
20, 1960, and discharging the functions thereof. Clearly, it cannot be
said that the ad-interim appointment extended to him on December 20,
1961, by virtue of which he took his oath of office on December 28,
1961 was one of those hurried designations that brought about the
“scramble” on the 29th and 30th of December, 1961, where the outgoing
Chief Executive perhaps did not have the opportunity to consider the
merits and qualifications of the hundreds of nominees to the positions
to which they were respectively being appointed. The ad-interim
appointment of petitioner, whose qualification is not in dispute and
the regularity of which is not questioned except for the fact that it
was made only on December 20, 1961, can not be considered as among
those “midnight” appointments the validity of which this Court declared
to be, at least, doubtful to entitle the appointees to the equitable
relief of quo warranto”.
Respondent, however, contends that petitioner’s appointment was not
lawfully confirmed by the Commission on Appointments in view of the
motion for reconsideration of such confirmation, which has, to the
present, remained enacted upon.
The revised rules of the Commission on Appointments, insofar as pertinent to the issue thus raised provide:
“Section 21. 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 he a final disposition of such a motion,“Section 22. Notice of confirmation or disapproval of an appointment shall not be sent to the President of the Philippines
before the expiration of the period for its reconsideration, or while a
motion for reconsideration is pending.” (Italics supplied.)
As stated before, the motion of Senator Puyat, for reconsideration
of the confirmations made the day before, among which was herein
petitioner’s, was coupled with prayer, not for a resubmission of said
appointments anew, but for the laying of the motion (for
reconsideration) on the table. 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. From Section 22 of the said rules,
the Commission on Appointments may either confirm or disapprove an
appointment, and notice of such action shall not be conveyed to the
President while a motion for reconsideration is pending.
It has been established here that on July 19, 1962, notice of the
confirmation of Quimsing’s appointment was delivered to Malacañang.
This action by the Commission on Appointments supports the conclusion
that the laying of a motion for reconsideration on the table does not
have the effect of witholding the effectivity of the confirmation, nor
is it synonymous with disapproval of the appointment. In fact, it is a
recognition that the appointment was confirmed.
In view of the foregoing considerations, the appointment of
respondent Eduardo Tajanglangit to the position of Chief of Police of
Iloilo City, which was not vacant, was null and void. Writ of
prohibition prayed for herein is granted. Without costs.
SO ORDERED.
Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepción, Reyes, J. B. L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
[1] Merrera vs. Liwag, G.R. No. L-20079 Sept. 30, 1963; Apillera vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-20741, Jan. 31, 1964; Jorge vs. Mayor, G.R. No. L-21776, Feb……., 1964; see also Aytona vs. Castillo, L-10031, Jan. 1962.
DISSENTING
PADILLA, J.:
For the same reasons stated in my concurring opinion in Aytona vs.
Castillo, G. R. No. L-19313, 19 January 1962, and dissenting opinions
in Gillera vs. Fernandez, et al., G.R. No. L-20741, 31 January 1964,
and in Jorge vs. Mayor, G. R. No. L-21776, 28 February 1964, the ad-interim
appointment of the petitioner as Chief of Police of Iloilo City on 28
December 1961 by the then President of the Republic expired on 30
December 1961. As the petitioner was not appointed to the same office
after the 30th day of December 1961, the confirmation of his ad-interim
appointment as Chief of Police of Iloilo City by the Commission on
Appointments on 16 May 1962 was of no legal validity and effect. The
respondent was lawfully appointed to the office and the petitioner is
not entitled to hold it. The petition for prohibition should be
dismissed.