G.R. No. L-19981; February 29, 1964
GODOFREDO QUIMSING, petitioner, vs. EDUARDO TAJANGLANGIT, respondent.

FACTS

Godofredo Quimsing was designated Acting Chief of Police of Iloilo City on May 20, 1960. On December 20, 1961, while serving in that capacity, he received an ad-interim appointment to the same position from President Carlos P. Garcia. Quimsing took his oath on December 28, 1961, and continued discharging the office’s functions. The Commission on Appointments confirmed his appointment on May 16, 1962.
The following day, May 17, 1962, Senator Puyat moved for reconsideration of all appointments confirmed the previous day. His motion included a request that the “motion for reconsideration be laid on the table” and moved for the Commission’s adjournment sine die, which was approved. Subsequently, on June 11, 1962, President Diosdado Macapagal designated Eduardo Tajanglangit as Acting Chief of Police. Tajanglangit assumed office on June 13, 1962, prompting Quimsing to file this petition for prohibition to restrain him.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) whether Quimsing’s ad-interim appointment was invalid as a “midnight appointment” under Administrative Order No. 2 and the ruling in Aytona v. Castillo; and (2) whether the confirmation of his appointment by the Commission on Appointments was rendered ineffective by the motion for reconsideration.

RULING

The Court ruled in favor of petitioner Quimsing. On the first issue, the Court held that Quimsing’s appointment was not a “midnight appointment” voided by the Aytona doctrine. The Aytona case and subsequent rulings did not invalidate all appointments made after December 13, 1961, per se, but examined the circumstances of each appointment. Quimsing had been the incumbent in an acting capacity since May 1960; his ad-interim appointment in December 1961 was not a hurried, last-minute designation made without consideration of merit, but a regular step in confirming an already-serving officer. Thus, his appointment was valid.
On the second issue, the Court held that the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments remained effective. Under the Commission’s rules, a motion for reconsideration may be laid on the table, and this act constitutes a final disposition of that motion. Senator Puyat’s motion was precisely laid on the table. Consequently, no pending motion for reconsideration existed to suspend the finality of the confirmation. The Commission’s subsequent transmittal of the notice of confirmation to the President on July 19, 1962, confirmed this interpretation. Therefore, Quimsing’s appointment was duly confirmed, and the position was not vacant when Tajanglangit was appointed. The writ of prohibition was granted, declaring Tajanglangit’s appointment null and void.