Valer v. Briones
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Domiciano F. Valer served as an ad interim member of the Board of Directors of the Abaca Corporation of the Philippines from December 22, 1958, to July 28, 1961. Subsequently, he was designated as "acting member" of the same Board on August 8, 1961, and continued to discharge his functions until June 26, 1962. Procedural History: On June 22, 1962, respondent Celerino O. Briones was appointed ad interim member of the Board, vice petitioner, for a term to expire on July 28, 1964. Briones assumed office on June 26, 1962. The Petition: Petitioner filed an original action for quo warranto, praying for the ouster of respondent Briones and for his own entitlement to the office. Petitioner claimed a second ad interim appointment issued in his favor on November 6, 1961, confirmed by the Commission on Appointments on April 27, 1962, and for which he took an oath of office on May 12, 1962. However, this appointment was not released until December 29 or 30, 1961. On December 31, 1961, the new President issued Administrative Order No. 2, recalling and cancelling all ad interim appointments made or released by his predecessor after December 13, 1961. Petitioner also averred, in response to an auditor's inquiry, that he had no knowledge of the December 29, 1961 appointment and had not accepted or taken oath under it.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the office of member of the Board of Directors of the Abaca Corporation of the Philippines. Whether the second ad interim appointment of the petitioner was valid and effective. Whether the designation of the petitioner as "acting member" grants him a vested right to the office.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed, and the writ prayed for is denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity and effectiveness of the petitioner's second ad interim appointment: The Court held that the petitioner's second ad interim appointment, though purportedly issued on November 6, 1961, was not released until December 29 or 30, 1961. This release occurred after December 13, 1961, the cutoff date set by the new President in Administrative Order No. 2, which recalled and cancelled all ad interim appointments made or released by his predecessor after that date. Therefore, this appointment fell within the purview of the ruling in Aytona vs. Castillo, rendering it ineffective. Furthermore, the petitioner himself, in a sworn statement, disclaimed knowledge of this appointment and stated he had not accepted or taken an oath under it, undermining his claim based on this appointment. On the petitioner's claim based on his designation as "acting member": The Court affirmed the well-settled principle that a "designation" or appointment as "acting" officer is essentially temporary and revocable at the pleasure of the appointing power. Citing established jurisprudence, the Court reiterated that such designations do not confer a vested right to the office. Consequently, the subsequent ad interim appointment of the respondent, which effectively revoked the petitioner's designation as acting member, was deemed legal and manifest. The petitioner's claim to the office was solely based on this temporary designation, which the appointing power had the right to revoke. On the petitioner's entitlement to the office: Based on the invalidity of his claimed second ad interim appointment and the revocable nature of his "acting member" designation, the Court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief prayed for. The respondent's subsequent ad interim appointment was valid, and his assumption of office was lawful, superseding the petitioner's temporary status.
Main Doctrine
An ad interim appointment, even if confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, may be revoked by a subsequent President through an administrative order, especially when the appointee's claim is based on a temporary designation as 'acting member' which is revocable at the pleasure of the appointing power.