Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1963 > January 1963 Decisions > G.R. No. L-19823 January 12, 1963 - RUPERTO ADVINCULA, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, ET AL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-19823. January 12, 1963.]

RUPERTO ADVINCULA and BRAULIO AVELINO, Petitioners, v. HON. COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS and its Chairman THE HON. PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINE SENATE; HON. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE; HON. JUDICIAL SUPERINTENDENT, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; HON. JUDGE CESARIO GOLEZ; THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, Respondents.

Jose Y. Torres and Alfonso Dadivas, Jr., for Petitioners.

Solicitor General for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENT; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CONFIRMATION; PERIOD TO FILE DOES NOT INCLUDE NON-WORKING DAY LIKE SATURDAY. — The previous decision of this Court in this case dismissing the petition for mandamus on the ground that the motion for reconsideration of the confirmation filed the Monday following the Friday when the appointments were confirmed complied with the one-day provision under Sec. 21 of the Revised Rules of the Commission on Appointments because Saturday is not a working day, is reaffirmed.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; REASONS. — Section 9, Art. VI, of the Constitution is not applicable to the Commission on Appointments because sessions of said Commission are not coetaneous with those of Congress. The Commission meets only when Congress is in session and it does not infringe any constitutional provision by deciding that its working day should be from Monday through Friday, excluding Saturday and Sunday. Besides, such decision of the Commission is in accordance with Republic Act 1880 which fixed the five-day week resulting in the closing of government offices on Saturdays, save those excepted by law and the Commission is not one of those so excepted. Consequently, the ruling of the Commission that Saturday, not being a working day is not included in the computation of the one-day provision for filing of motions for reconsideration of its decision, is correct.


R E S O L U T I O N


BARRERA, J.:


Petitioners pray, upon the grounds urged in their motion, for the reconsideration of the decision rendered herein dismissing their petition for mandamus.

The issue in this case, as stated in our decision, is the interpretation of Section 21 of the Revised Rules of the Commission of Appointments which in its pertinent part, reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 21. Resolution of the Commission on any appointment may be reconsidered on motion by a member presented not more than one (1) day after their approval . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioners contend that since their appointments were confirmed on April 27 (a Friday) and the motion for reconsideration was filed on April 30 (the following Monday), the confirmation had become final and irrevocable, and its subsequent reconsideration was null and void.

On the other hand, we found that the Commission on Appointments itself has, in effect, ruled that the one-day provision in question refers to a working day, and Saturday not being one, the filing of the motion made on the following Monday fulfills the requirement of the rule.

We upheld the interpretation given by the Commission itself of its own rules and refused to issue the writ of mandamus prayed for. We now reaffirm our decision on the following grounds:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) Section 9, Article VI, of the Constitution, providing:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The Congress shall convene in regular session once every year on the fourth Monday of January, unless a different date is fixed by law. It may be called in special session at any time, by the President to consider general legislative or only such subjects as he may designate. No special session shall continue longer than thirty days and no regular session longer than one hundred days, exclusive of Sundays."cralaw virtua1aw library

is not applicable to the Commission on Appointments. The constitutional provision expressly limits the duration of the sessions of the Congress itself to thirty days, for special sessions, and one hundred days for regular sessions, exclusive of Sundays. To hold that this provision equally applied to the Commission as contended by petitioners, would be to declare that the session of this body are coetaneous with those of the Congress itself. But this is not true because at least in the first session of the Congress when it will have to organize itself first by electing the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Commission does not come into existence until it is constituted within thirty days after the organization of both houses of Congress. 1 In other words, while Congress is already in session and the 100-day period is already running as to it, the Commission is yet to be constituted. Consequently by necessity the number of days of session of the Commission fall short of those of the Congress. Therefore, the sessions of the two bodies are not coetaneous; therefore Section 9, Article VI of the Constitution is not applicable to the Commission on Appointments.

(2) The only provision that governs the sessions of the Commission on Appointments is Section 13, Article VI of the Constitution which says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . The Commission on Appointments shall meet only while the Congress is in session, at the call of its Chairman or a majority of its Members, to discharge such powers and functions as are herein conferred upon it."cralaw virtua1aw library

Note that the sole mandatory injunction that is obligatory on the Commission is that it shall meet only while the Congress is in session. How often and how long it shall meet is left entirely to the discretion of the Commission, as long as it is during the session of the Congress, and it shall meet at the call of its chairman or a majority of its members. Therefore, if the Commission itself decides that its working days should be from Monday through Friday of the week, excluding Saturday and Sunday, it would be exercising its lawful authority and would not be infringing any constitutional provision.

(3) The interpretation of its own rules adopted by the Commission in this case, is in accordance with Republic Act 1880, which fixed the minimum requirements of legal hours of labor to 40 hours a week or 8 hours a day for five days per week, resulting in the closing from public transaction of all government offices on Saturdays, save those excepted by law. And the Commission on Appointments is not one of those excepted by law.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, if not for the considerations stated in the last paragraph of the original opinion, which, for the purposes of this decision, may be laid aside, the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners is hereby denied. So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

Reyes, J.B.L., J., did not take part.

Endnotes:



1. Section 13, Art. VI of the Constitution.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-1963 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-19823 January 12, 1963 - RUPERTO ADVINCULA, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13873 January 31, 1963 - GENERAL INSURANCE and SURETY CORPORATION v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14311 January 31, 1963 - MANILA SANITARIUM & HOSPITAL v. FAUSTO GABUCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14653 January 31, 1963 - IN RE: RICARDO SANTIAGO v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-14676 January 31, 1963 - CANDIDA VILLALUZ, ET AL. v. JUAN NEME, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14801 January 31, 1963 - FILOMENA SILVA v. DOMINGO M. CABAÑGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15151 January 31, 1963 - EDMUNDO GRACELLA v. EL COLEGIO DEL HOSPICIO DE SAN JOSE, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-15467 January 31, 1963 - JESUS LANCITA, ET AL. v. GONZALO MAGBANUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15484 January 31, 1963 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15656 January 31, 1963 - ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY, INC. v. WELLINGTON CHUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15754 January 31, 1963 - NORTH CAMARINES LUMBER COMPANY, INC. v. METROPOLITAN INSURANCE COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-15948 January 31, 1963 - PEDRO P. RIVERA v. CARLOS P. MACLANG

  • G.R. No. L-16257 January 31, 1963 - CAPITOL SUBDIVISION, INC. v. PROVINCE OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL

  • G.R. No. L-16396 January 31, 1963 - BASILISA JUSTIVA v. JESUS GUSTILO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16417 January 31, 1963 - P. J. KIENER CO., LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-16435 January 31, 1963 - DIOSDADO ESPINOSA v. NICASIO A. YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16489 January 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL BASBANIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16525 January 31, 1963 - JOSEPH REICH v. EDMUND SCHWESINGER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16749 January 31, 1963 - IN RE: EDWARD E. CHRISTENSEN v. HELEN CHRISTENSEN GARCIA

  • G.R. No. L-16827 January 31, 1963 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. JOSE AGUIRRE

  • G.R. No. L-16884 January 31, 1963 - NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION v. MELQUIADES G. ILAO

  • G.R. No. L-17085 January 31, 1963 - LUZON BROKERAGE COMPANY v. LUZON LABOR UNION

  • G.R. No. L-17625 January 31, 1963 - INSULAR LUMBER COMPANY v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-17804 January 31, 1963 - NATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17837 January 31, 1963 - ORIENTAL KAPOK INDUSTRIES v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-17878 January 31, 1963 - AMERICAN STEAMSHIP AGENCIES, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18096 January 31, 1963 - MARIA ABON, ET AL. v. AMPARO E. PABLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18129 January 31, 1963 - C. N. HODGES v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE CITY OF ILOILO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18178 January 31, 1963 - REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ILOILO v. C. N. HODGES

  • G.R. No. L-18184 January 31, 1963 - GAUDENCIO VERA, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18240 January 31, 1963 - SOFRONIO C. QUIMSON, ET AL. v. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. L-18290 January 31, 1963 - CITY OF BACOLOD v. LEANDRO GRUET

  • G.R. No. L-18360 January 31, 1963 - TATALON BARRIO COUNCIL, ET AL. v. CHIEF ACCOUNTANT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18389 January 31, 1963 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18480 January 31, 1963 - LEOPOLDO SALCEDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18515 January 31, 1963 - GERONIMO E. CAPARAS v. DOMINGO C. GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18518 January 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO TAGARO

  • G.R. No. L-18601-2 January 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUALHATI S. MACANDOG

  • G.R. No. L-18639 January 31, 1963 - JAVIER SECURITY SPECIAL WATCHMAN AGENCY, ET AL. v. SHELL CRAFT & BUTTON CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-18692 January 31, 1963 - MANUEL B. RUIZ v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18704 January 31, 1963 - OCEANIC AIR PRODUCTS, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18742 January 31, 1963 - OFELIA DE GREARTE, ET AL. v. LONDON ASSURANCE

  • G.R. No. L-18746 January 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FREDERICK G. WEBER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18879 January 31, 1963 - LOPE DAMASCO v. ABUNDIO Z. ARRIETA

  • G.R. No. L-18941 January 31, 1963 - GERTRUDES MATA, ET AL. v. RITA LEGARDA, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-18982 January 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUPERTO SORIA

  • G.R. No. L-19423 January 31, 1963 - PEOPLE’S SURETY AND INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. CRISANTO ARAGON