Soreño v. Secretary of Justice
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Guillermo Ba. Soreño claims to have been appointed Justice of the Peace of Vallehermoso, Negros Oriental on December 13, 1961, took his oath on December 26, 1961, and his appointment was confirmed by the Commission on Appointments on April 27, 1962. He assumed duties and sought payment of his salaries. Procedural History: Respondents, including the Secretary of Justice, argued that petitioner's appointment was withdrawn by President Macapagal's Administrative Order No. 2 on December 31, 1961, that the confirmation was void, and that petitioner was among the "midnight appointees" affected by the Aytona v. Castillo ruling. The Secretary of Justice refused to authorize salary payments. The Petition: Petitioner filed an action for mandamus and prohibition to compel the respondents to authorize payment of his salaries and to allow him to discharge his duties as Justice of the Peace.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner's ad interim appointment as Justice of the Peace of Vallehermoso, Negros Oriental, is valid and subsisting. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the payment of his salaries as Justice of the Peace.
Ruling
The Court granted the petition, ordering the respondents to allow the petitioner to perform his duties as Justice of the Peace of Vallehermoso, Negros Oriental, and to order the payment of his salary from the date of his assumption of duty.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the petitioner's ad interim appointment: The Court found that the petitioner's appointment, dated December 13, 1961, was released and transmitted to him on December 22, 1961, and he took his oath of office on December 26, 1961. This occurred before Administrative Order No. 2, which withdrew midnight appointments, was promulgated on December 31, 1961. The Court emphasized that the appointment was processed through regular channels and the oath-taking was not marked by haste, distinguishing it from the "midnight appointments" addressed in Aytona v. Castillo. The confirmation by the Commission on Appointments further bolstered the regularity of the appointment. Therefore, the appointment was considered valid and not affected by Administrative Order No. 2. On the petitioner's entitlement to salaries: Since the Court found the petitioner's appointment to be valid and subsisting, he is legally entitled to perform the duties of the office and receive the corresponding salary from the date he assumed office. The refusal of the respondents to authorize payment was based on the erroneous premise that the appointment was invalid due to Administrative Order No. 2, which the Court has now clarified does not apply to the petitioner's case.
Main Doctrine
An ad interim appointment, released and taken with oath of office prior to the promulgation of Administrative Order No. 2 withdrawing midnight appointments, is considered regular and valid, and not affected by said administrative order.