Lopez v. Ericta
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the election of Dr. Consuelo S. Blanco as Dean of the College of Education at the University of the Philippines. Dr. Blanco held an ad interim appointment, which was submitted to the Board of Regents for consideration. The University President, Salvador P. Lopez, and the Board of Regents are petitioners in this case, challenging a lower court's decision that declared Dr. Blanco the duly elected Dean. 2. Procedural History: Dr. Blanco initially filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City, presided over by Judge Vicente Ericta. On December 3, 1970, the court ruled in favor of Dr. Blanco, declaring her the duly elected Dean and voiding the appointment of Oseas A. del Rosario as Officer-in-Charge. The petitioners, including the University President, the Board of Regents, and Oseas A. del Rosario, appealed this decision to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari. A preliminary injunction was issued by the Supreme Court to halt the immediate execution of the lower court's judgment. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, Salvador P. Lopez, the Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines, and Oseas A. del Rosario, seek review of the Court of First Instance's decision. Their petition argues that Dr. Blanco was not duly elected Dean, focusing on the proceedings of the Board of Regents meeting on July 9, 1970. Specifically, they contest the interpretation of the vote on Dr. Blanco's ad interim appointment, which resulted in five votes in favor, three against, and four abstentions. The petitioners contend that the Board's subsequent action to suspend further deliberation and declare the ad interim appointment terminated was proper, as Dr. Blanco had not secured a majority vote for confirmation and her appointment was subject to the Board's approval and potential termination.
Issue(s)
Whether Dr. Consuelo S. Blanco was duly elected Dean of the College of Education, University of the Philippines. Whether abstention votes in the Board of Regents meeting should be counted as affirmative votes for the confirmation of an ad interim appointment. Whether the Board of Regents had the authority to reconsider its actions and terminate Dr. Blanco's ad interim appointment during the same meeting.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance, dismissed Dr. Blanco's petition, and made the preliminary injunction permanent. It held that Dr. Blanco was not duly elected Dean and that her ad interim appointment had terminated.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether Dr. Consuelo S. Blanco was duly elected Dean of the College of Education, University of the Philippines: The Court found that Dr. Blanco was not duly elected Dean. The University Charter (Act No. 1870, Sec. 10) and the Revised Code of the University (Art. 78) clearly state that the Dean is elected by the Board of Regents on nomination by the President. While the President can nominate, his role is not to extend an appointment, even ad interim. The Board's power is to elect or appoint. In the meeting of July 9, 1970, the Board did not elect Dr. Blanco. The voting resulted in five affirmative votes, three negative votes, and four abstentions. The Court emphasized that the context of the meeting, particularly the discussions and the withdrawal of the Personnel Committee's recommendation, indicated that the intent was not to confirm Dr. Blanco's appointment. The subsequent motion to suspend action further demonstrated that no confirmation had occurred. On Whether abstention votes in the Board of Regents meeting should be counted as affirmative votes for the confirmation of an ad interim appointment: The Court held that abstention votes cannot be automatically construed as affirmative votes, especially when the surrounding circumstances and the expressed intent of the members indicate otherwise. While some jurisdictions may presume acquiescence from abstention, this presumption is prima facie and can be rebutted by clear evidence. In this case, the discussions among the Regents, particularly those from the Personnel Committee, revealed a clear intent for the appointment not to be accepted, with the withdrawal of the recommendation being a diplomatic maneuver. The abstentions by committee members were in line with this intent, not an acquiescence in the affirmative votes. Therefore, the 5-3-4 vote did not constitute a majority for confirmation. On Whether the Board of Regents had the authority to reconsider its actions and terminate Dr. Blanco's ad interim appointment during the same meeting: The Court affirmed the Board's authority to reconsider its actions within the same meeting before adjournment. The minutes of the July 9, 1970 meeting showed that after the voting, a motion was made and approved to suspend action, effectively returning the case to its original status and stating that no action had been taken on the confirmation. The Chairman explicitly announced that the ad interim appointment had terminated as of that day because the Board had not acted on it favorably or adversely. This power of reconsideration is inherent in deliberative bodies, and since no title to the office had vested in Dr. Blanco, the Board was within its rights to suspend action and declare the termination of the provisional appointment.
Main Doctrine
The election of a Dean by the Board of Regents requires a clear affirmative vote, and abstentions cannot be automatically construed as affirmative votes, especially when the context indicates a contrary intent or a desire for further deliberation. Ad interim appointments are provisional and subject to the Board's final approval or rejection, and the Board retains the authority to reconsider its actions within the same meeting before adjournment, effectively terminating such appointments if not confirmed.