Pobre v. Mendieta
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: The term of the PRC Commissioner/Chairman, Julio B. Francia, expired on January 2, 1992. Mariano A. Mendieta was the Senior Associate Commissioner, and Hermogenes P. Pobre was the second Associate Commissioner. The Executive Secretary sought the opinion of the Acting Secretary of Justice regarding whether the President's appointment power for the PRC Commissioner was restricted by Section 2 of P.D. No. 223, specifically concerning the succession of the Senior Associate Commissioner. The Acting Secretary of Justice opined that the President's power was not restricted. Procedural History: On February 15, 1992, President Corazon C. Aquino appointed petitioner Hermogenes P. Pobre as PRC Commissioner/Chairman. Mendieta, as Senior Associate Commissioner, filed a petition for declaratory relief, asserting his right to succeed Francia as Chairman by operation of law under Section 2 of P.D. No. 223. The RTC dismissed this petition. Mendieta then filed a petition for quo warranto contesting Pobre's appointment. On August 5, 1992, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of Mendieta, interpreting the succession clause to mean that Mendieta, as the senior Associate Commissioner, was legally entitled to succeed Francia. Consequently, a writ of prohibitory injunction was issued on August 19, 1992, enjoining Pobre from discharging his duties. The Petition: Pobre filed consolidated petitions for certiorari and prohibition under Rules 45 and 65 of the Rules of Court to set aside the RTC decision and writ of injunction, arguing that the President's appointing power was not curtailed and that his appointment was lawful.
Issue(s)
Whether the appointment of Hermogenes P. Pobre as Commissioner/Chairman of the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) by the President is valid, considering the President's appointing power and the interpretation of Section 2 of P.D. No. 223. Whether Section 2 of P.D. No. 223 restricts the President's power to appoint the PRC Commissioner/Chairman, mandating the succession of the Senior Associate Commissioner by operation of law, and the implications for statutory construction and avoiding absurdity.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling and setting aside the RTC decision and writ of injunction. The appointment of Hermogenes P. Pobre as Commissioner/Chairman of the PRC was declared lawful and in order.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the appointment and the interpretation of Section 2 of P.D. No. 223: The Court held that the President's power to appoint the Commissioner/Chairman of the PRC is not restricted by Section 2 of P.D. No. 223. The provision stating that "any vacancy in the Commission shall be filled for the unexpired term only with the most Senior of the Associate Commissioners succeeding the Commissioner at the expiration of his term, resignation or removal" applies only when there is an actual unexpired term of the Commissioner to be served. If the Commissioner's term has expired, the vacancy must be filled by a new appointment made by the President. The Court found the RTC's interpretation that the Senior Associate Commissioner automatically succeeds the Commissioner by operation of law to be erroneous and leading to an absurd result where the President's appointing power would be severely curtailed. Given the interpretation that the President's appointing power is not restricted and that automatic succession does not apply when a Commissioner's term expires, the appointment of Hermogenes P. Pobre by President Corazon C. Aquino as PRC Commissioner/Chairman was deemed lawful. The expiration of Commissioner Francia's term created a vacancy that the President was empowered to fill by appointment, and Pobre was a valid appointee. On statutory construction and avoiding absurdity, and the restriction on the President's appointing power: The Court emphasized the duty of courts to ascertain the true meaning of a statute when its language is doubtful or adherence to the strict letter would lead to injustice or absurdity. In this case, a literal interpretation of Section 2 of P.D. No. 223 would imply that the President could only appoint the junior Associate Commissioner, which is an absurd outcome. Therefore, the Court construed the provision to avoid this absurdity. The Court also noted that the history of the PRC disproved the theory of automatic succession, citing instances where the President appointed individuals from outside the commission to fill the Chairman position. The Court found that the phrase "at the expiration of his term, resignation or removal" in Section 2 of P.D. No. 223 could not logically refer to the Commissioner's term if it was meant to be succeeded by the Senior Associate Commissioner for an "unexpired portion" of that term. It would be contradictory. Instead, the Court reasoned that this clause more logically refers to the Senior Associate Commissioner's own term, meaning the Senior Associate Commissioner would succeed the Commissioner only until the expiration of the Senior Associate Commissioner's own term, resignation, or removal. Thus, the Court interpreted "at" to mean "until" to avoid contradiction and preserve the intent of the law. The Court reiterated that the power of appointment is vested in the President by the Constitution. P.D. No. 223, issued under the authority of the 1973 Constitution, designates the President as the appointing authority for the PRC Commissioner and Associate Commissioners. To interpret Section 2 of P.D. No. 223 as automatically transferring the appointment of the Commissioner to the Senior Associate Commissioner would be an unconstitutional encroachment on the executive power. The Court stressed that the President's prerogative to choose and appoint the head of the PRC should not be clipped by an absurd interpretation of the law.
Main Doctrine
The President's power to appoint the Commissioner of the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) is not restricted by Section 2 of P.D. No. 223, which mandates that any vacancy in the Commission shall be filled for the unexpired term only with the most senior Associate Commissioner succeeding the Commissioner at the expiration of his term, resignation or removal. This succession clause applies only when there is an unexpired term of the Commissioner to be served; otherwise, the vacancy must be filled by appointment by the President. The phrase 'at the expiration of his term, resignation or removal' should be interpreted as 'until the expiration of his term, resignation or removal' to avoid absurdity and preserve the President's appointing power.