Altarejos v. Molo
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Cesar C. Altarejos received an ad interim appointment from the President as Provincial Assessor for Masbate on July 24, 1964, and subsequently took his oath of office on August 1, 1964. His appointment was submitted to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation. 2. Procedural History: During the 1965 regular session of Congress, the Commission on Appointments confirmed petitioner's appointment on May 19, 1965. However, on the same day, a motion for reconsideration was filed by Congressman Jose M. Aldeguer. The following day, Senator Gil Puyat moved to defer action on the appointment, and Senator Francisco Rodrigo moved to lay on the table all pending motions for reconsideration. Congress adjourned sine die on May 20, 1965, but reconvened for a special session from May 21 to June 24, 1965. Despite Congressman Aldeguer withdrawing his motion for reconsideration on May 27, 1965, the respondent, Secretary of the Commission on Appointments, failed or refused to issue the certificate of confirmation, leading to the filing of this original action for mandamus. 3. The Petition: Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent, as Secretary of the Commission on Appointments, to issue a certificate of confirmation for his appointment as Provincial Assessor of Masbate. Petitioner also seeks damages. The core of the petition revolves around the legal effect of the motion for reconsideration, the subsequent motion to lay it on the table, and the withdrawal of the reconsideration motion, arguing that these actions did not invalidate the initial confirmation of his appointment. The respondent's defense is that the motion for reconsideration effectively recalled the confirmation and that the appointment was by-passed upon adjournment.
Issue(s)
Whether the filing of a motion for reconsideration automatically suspends or recalls a confirmed appointment. Whether laying a motion for reconsideration on the table constitutes a final disposition thereof. Whether the withdrawal of a motion for reconsideration is valid after it has been laid on the table. Whether the respondent Secretary has a ministerial duty to issue the certificate of confirmation. Whether the petitioner is entitled to damages.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the writ of mandamus, directing the respondent Secretary to issue the certificate of confirmation. The claim for damages was denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On the effect of a motion for reconsideration: The Court held that the mere filing of a motion for reconsideration does not automatically recall or suspend a confirmed appointment. Respondent's theory that filing a motion for reconsideration dispenses with the necessity of its approval is devoid of merit, as Rule 21 of the Commission's Revised Rules requires a majority concurrence to grant reconsideration and reopen an appointment. The confirmation is merely suspended, not recalled, if the motion is not acted upon before adjournment. On laying a motion for reconsideration on the table: The Court emphasized that laying a motion for reconsideration on the table, as provided in Rule 21 and by long practice of the House, constitutes a final disposition of such motion. This action is equivalent to a practical adverse disposition, meaning no further action is needed on the motion, and it is as if no motion for reconsideration was filed at all. This interpretation aligns with the principle that such a motion, if not acted upon, is considered not approved and has no effect whatsoever. On the withdrawal of a motion for reconsideration: Since the motion for reconsideration was laid on the table, which is a final disposition, its subsequent withdrawal by Congressman Aldeguer did not alter the status of the confirmed appointment. The confirmation remained valid and binding because the motion to reconsider had been definitively disposed of by being laid on the table. On the respondent's ministerial duty: The Court found that the respondent Secretary has a ministerial duty, under Section 6(c) of the Commission's Revised Rules, to certify under his signature and the seal of the Commission the resolutions and orders thereof. Issuing the certificate of confirmation is a direct consequence of the confirmed appointment and the final disposition of any motion for reconsideration. On the claim for damages: The claim for damages was denied for lack of proof of actual damages suffered by the petitioner. Furthermore, the respondent was sued in his official capacity, and there was no allegation or evidence of bad faith on his part.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration of an appointment confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, if laid on the table, constitutes a final disposition of such motion, rendering the confirmation final and binding, and obligating the Secretary to issue the corresponding certificate of confirmation.