Cabiling v. Pabualan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On August 10, 1960, Teodoro N. Pepito and Ernesto Garcia were designated Acting Mayor and Acting Vice-Mayor of Valencia, Bukidnon, performing duties until June 23, 1962. Similarly, Vicente Cabiling and Paulino Gonzales were designated Acting Mayor and Acting Vice-Mayor of Dangcagan on September 28, 1961, also serving until June 23, 1962. On December 18, 1961, 'Acting designations' were converted to 'Ad interim appointments' and antedated by President Garcia on December 25, 1961, with confirmations by the Commission on Appointments in May 1962. However, on December 31, 1961, President Macapagal issued Administrative Order No. 2, withdrawing ad interim appointments made by President Garcia after December 13, 1961. Subsequently, on June 6, 1962, President Macapagal issued new acting appointments to different individuals for both municipalities. Procedural History: On December 4, 1962, Vicente Cabiling and co-appellees filed a quo warranto petition (Case No. 240) with the Court of First Instance of Bukidnon, challenging the appointments of Eusebio Pabualan, et al. in Dangcagan. A similar petition (Case No. 239) was filed by Teodoro N. Pepito and co-appellees, assailing the appointments of Lucilo Alkuino, et al. in Valencia. The trial court rendered judgment on June 7, 1963, declaring the petitioners (appellees) as the legal occupants of the positions and ordering the ouster of the respondents (appellants). The Petition: The respondents-appellants are appealing the decision of the trial court, which declared the petitioners-appellees as the legal occupants of the positions and ordered the ouster of the respondents-appellants.
Issue(s)
Whether the 'acting appointments' extended to the appellees were permanent in nature. Whether the ad interim appointments extended by President Garcia were valid and effective. Whether the appellees are estopped from claiming their acting appointments were permanent. Whether Administrative Order No. 2 issued by President Macapagal was valid in withdrawing ad interim appointments.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the trial court, dismissing the petitions for quo warranto. The respondents-appellants were declared the legal occupants of the positions.
Ratio Decidendi
On the nature of 'acting appointments': The trial court erred in ruling that the 'acting appointments' extended to the appellees were permanent. Section 10 of Republic Act No. 180, which allows the President to fill offices in newly created political divisions by appointment, does not mandate that such appointments must be permanent. The provision grants the Chief Executive the option to fill the offices by appointment, and this power generally includes the authority to make temporary appointments unless specifically prohibited by law. Therefore, the 'acting' appointments were not necessarily permanent and did not automatically extend until the general elections of 1963. On the validity of ad interim appointments: The ad interim appointments extended in favor of the appellees were signed by President Garcia on December 25, 1961, and forwarded to the Commission on Appointments on December 26, 1961. These were considered part of the 'midnight appointments' which were voided by the Court's decision in the Aytona case. Furthermore, the preponderance of evidence indicated that these ad interim appointments had never been released, rendering the action taken by the Commission on Appointments of no legal effect. The telegrams presented as evidence of release were received after the issuance of Administrative Order No. 2, which withdrew all appointments made by the previous Chief Executive after December 13, 1961. On estoppel: The appellees are estopped from claiming that their acting appointments were permanent. They accepted two sets of acting appointments from President Garcia without protest. The subsequent conversion of these acting appointments to 'ad interim' appointments, which were later voided, further supports the view that the initial appointments were not intended to be permanent. By accepting these appointments and acting thereunder for a considerable time, they cannot now assert that these were permanent appointments from which they could not be removed except for cause. On Administrative Order No. 2: While not directly ruled upon as a separate issue, the Court's decision implicitly upholds the validity of Administrative Order No. 2 by considering the ad interim appointments voided by it. The withdrawal of appointments made after December 13, 1961, by President Macapagal was a significant factor in determining the invalidity of the appellees' ad interim appointments, especially since the evidence showed they were not effectively released before the order took effect.
Main Doctrine
Acting appointments to newly created municipalities are not necessarily permanent and can be revoked by the President, especially when they are part of 'midnight appointments' voided by subsequent executive orders and judicial pronouncements.