Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > February 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-23301 February 28, 1966 CELESTINO E. ESUERTE, ET AL. v. DELFIN JAMPAYAS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-23301. February 28, 1966.]

CELESTINO E. ESUERTE, MARIA BITOY, HONORATO LUTERO, and ANATALIO BARCENA, Petitioners-Appellants, v. DELFIN JAMPAYAS, EULOGIO VIAJEDOR, DEMETRIO B. HECHANOVA, ANTONIO MACADANGDANG, RICARDO BITOY, FRANCISCO ESQUIERDA and HON. SALVADOR MARIÑO in his capacity as Executive Secretary, Respondents-Appellees.

G. A. Palabisca for the petitioners and appellants.

Solicitor General for the respondents and appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. AD INTERIM APPOINTMENTS; VARIANCE BETWEEN DATE OF ACTUAL APPOINTMENTS AND DATE APPEARING ON THE APPOINTMENTS; CASE AT BAR. — That petitioners were actually appointed ad interim toward the end of December 1961 and not on June 1, 1961, the date appearing on the appointments, as testified by the Senior Executive Assistant in the Office of the President, is conclusively corroborated by their own conduct in not qualifying under their own ad interim appointments until January 1962, when their own interests dictated that they qualify as early as possible, since as acting officers they were removable at any time and could be dispensed with for no cause at all. It is thus clear that petitioners’ appointments were part of the 350 "midnight" appointments dealt with in the cases of Aytona v. Castillo, G.R. No. L-19313, January 19, 1962 and Rodriguez v. Quirino, G.R. No. L-19800, October 28, 1963.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J. B. L., J.:


Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Davao, in Special Civil Case No. 3950, wherein Judge Macapanton Abbas dismissed the action for prohibition and quo warranto filed by petitioners-appellants Celestino Esuerte, Et. Al.

The facts are practically uncontested. Petitioner Celestino Esuerto, Maria Bitoy, Honorato Lutero and Anatalio Barcena had been, prior to June 1, 1961, designated in an acting capacity as Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilors of the municipality of Mawab, Davao, by then President Carlos P. Garcia, and had acted according to such designations. In appointments apparently dated June 1, 1961, these petitioners were appointed ad interim Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilors, but took their oaths of office on the following dates:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Celestino Esuerto, as Mayor, ad interim, January 23, 1962; Maria Bitoy, ad interim Vice Mayor, January 10, 1962; Anatolio Barcena, ad interim councilor, January 10, 1962.

The lower court found, on the basis of the uncontradicted testimony of the Senior Executive Assistant in the Administrative Division of the Office of the President (Garcia), Benigno O. Aquino, that on December 18, 1961, Secretary Gallares issued a directive (Exhibit "2") that the President desired all designations be converted to ad interim appointments, and that all such appointments were made to appear to have been made long before the presidential elections of 1961, though they were actually processed on December 25, 1961, and on December 26 a letter was prepared for the transmittal of the appointments to the Commission on Appointments and that appointments of the petitioner herein were actually received in the Commission offices on December 29, 1961. They were confirmed on April 27, 1962.

Prior to that date, however, President Diosdado Macapagal had issued, on December 30, 1961, Administrative Order No. 2, revoking and recalling the ad interim appointments issued by his predecessor after December 13, 1961; and on January 25, 1963, then President Macapagal designated respondent Delfin Jampayas as acting Mayor of Mawab, Davao; Eulogio Viajedor as acting Vice Mayor; and respondents Antonio Macadangdang, Demetrio Hechanova, Ricardo Bitoy, and Francisco Esquierdo to be acting municipal councilors of Mawab, Davao.

That petitioner were actually appointed ad interim toward the end of December, 1961 and not on the date appearing on the appointments (June 1, 1961), as testified to by Administrative Assistant Aquino, is conclusively corroborated by their own conduct in not qualifying under their ad interim appointments until January, 1962; when their own interest dictated that they should qualify as early as possible, since as acting officers they were removable at any time and could be dispensed with for no cause at all. We note that against the testimony of Aquino, petitioners could only say that they did not remember when they were notified of their appointments or took their oaths of office.

It is thus clear that, like the one dealt with in Rodriguez v. Quirino, L-19800, October 28, 1963, petitioners’ appointments were part of the 350 "midnight" appointments dealt with in the Aytona v. Castillo decision (G.R. No. L-19313, January 19, 1962), and are covered by the rule laid down in both cases. In the Rodriguez v. Quirino case, we said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In the first place, while the petitioner’s ad interim appointment appears dated on the first of June 1961, it was not communicated to him until the 30th of December of that year, and nothing in the record indicates that its existence was made known to any one before the last days of 1961. It can be inferred from this secrecy that the appointing power did not desire to make the selection final and operative until the last day of President Garcia’s term. Consequently, this petitioner’s appointment should be regarded as part and parcel of the 300 and more "midnight" appointments referred to in our decision in Aytona v. Castillo, G. R. No. L-19313, and is covered by the rule laid down therein."cralaw virtua1aw library

Considering further that the municipality of Mawab was created only by executive order, and that this Court has recently ruled that the creation of municipalities by the Executive has been eliminated by the Constitution 1, we see no error in the lower court’s refusal to interfere with the appointment of respondents herein.

Wherefore, the judgment under appeal is hereby affirmed, with costs against appellants.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Pelaez v. Auditor General, L-23825, December 24, 1965.




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






February-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-23876 February 22, 1966 URSULA C. DAJAO v. BENEDICTO PADILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17518-19 February 28, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO SECAPURI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18295 February 28, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIZARDO PASIONA

  • G.R. No. L-17638 February 28, 1966 PRIMO GAFFUD v. MARCIANA CRISTOBAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19371 February 28, 1966 HOSPITAL DE SAN JUAN DE DIOS, INC. v. PASAY CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21079 February 28, 1966 IN RE: KOA HENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21671 February 28, 1966 IN RE: TAN HUY LIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19648 February 28, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO MACABUHAY

  • G.R. No. L-19579 February 28, 1966 IN RE: CHAN KIAT HUAT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19722 February 28, 1966 FLORENCIO L. ALBINO v. TOMAS L. BORROMEO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19751 February 28, 1966 ALFREDO REMITERE, ET AL. v. REMEDIOS MONTINOLA VDA. DE YULO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19900 February 28, 1966 EXPEDITO REMONTE, ET AL. v. AQUILINO P. BONTO

  • G.R. No. L-19905 February 28, 1966 VIRGILIO BRUA v. ENRIQUE INTING

  • G.R. No. L-20152 February 28, 1966 IN RE: LEONCIO DY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20412 February 28, 1966 PNB v. AMANDO M. PEREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20505 February 28, 1966 IN RE: ONG KIM KONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20601 February 28, 1966 BUTUAN SAWMILL, INC. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20712 February 28, 1966 IN RE: TAN KING BOOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20753 February 28, 1966 BASIC BOOKS (PHIL.), INC. v. EMILIO LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20978 February 28, 1966 PHIL- AM GEN. INS. CO., INC. v. EUGENIO B. RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21415 February 8, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. REPUBLIC SURETY & INS. CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-21435 February 28, 1966 MLA. ELECTRIC CO. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM.

  • G.R. No. L-21447 February 28, 1966 JOSE REYES, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO ARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21523 February 28, 1966 NGO CHIAO LIN v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-21569 February 28, 1966 BIENVENIDO P. BUAN, ET AL. v. PRISCILLO CAMAGANACAN

  • G.R. No. L-21833 February 28, 1966 STATE BONDING & INS. CO., INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21877 February 28, 1966 J. M. TUASON & CO. INC. v. ENRIQUE TONGOL

  • G.R. No. L-22043 February 28, 1966 AURORA C. MALLARI, ET AL. v. VICTORY LINER, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-22609 February 28, 1966 CHIEF OF THE P.C. v. SABUNGAN BAGONG SILANG, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23301 February 28, 1966 CELESTINO E. ESUERTE, ET AL. v. DELFIN JAMPAYAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23828 February 28, 1966 PAULINA SANTOS, ET AL. v. GREGORIA ARANZANSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24727 February 28, 1966 PATERNO JAVIER v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ANTIQUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-25084 and L-25270 February 28, 1966 ELENITA V. UNSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25502 February 28, 1966 LEOPOLDO DIAZ v. SALVADOR C. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25521 February 28, 1966 GREGORIO FERINION v. DIOSDADO STA. ROMANA, ET AL.