GR L 21776; (February, 1964) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21776. February 28, 1964
NICANOR G. JORGE, petitioner, vs. JOVENCIO Q. MAYOR, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Nicanor G. Jorge, a career official with 38 years of service in the Bureau of Lands, was appointed ad interim Director of Lands by President Carlos P. Garcia on December 13, 1961. He qualified by taking his oath on December 23, 1961, and his appointment was confirmed by the Commission on Appointments on May 14, 1962. He discharged the duties of the office until November 14, 1962, when he was informed by the Secretary of Agriculture that his appointment had been revoked pursuant to President Diosdado Macapagal’s Administrative Order No. 2, dated December 31, 1961. The order purported to withdraw all ad interim appointments made and released by President Garcia after the joint session of Congress ended on December 13, 1961. Petitioner was then designated as Acting Director, and respondent Jovencio Q. Mayor was subsequently designated as Acting Director in his place. Jorge protested this action and ultimately filed this petition for mandamus and quo warranto to be declared the rightful Director and to recover the office.
ISSUE
The fundamental issue is whether Administrative Order No. 2 validly revoked petitioner’s ad interim appointment, thereby rendering his position vacant.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioner, declaring his appointment valid and unrevoked. The Court held that Administrative Order No. 2, by its own terms, applied only to ad interim appointments made and released after the joint session of Congress ended on December 13, 1961. Taking judicial notice that the session concluded late at night, after regular office hours, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Court presumed that Jorge’s appointment, dated December 13, was made during regular office hours before the session’s close. Therefore, it was not covered by the revocation order. Consequently, his subsequent confirmation by the Commission on Appointments was valid, and the office never became vacant.
The Court distinguished this case from Aytona v. Castillo, which involved a “midnight appointment” scenario characterized by a rushed and indiscriminate series of appointments lacking deliberate consideration. In contrast, Jorge’s appointment was an isolated act on December 13, featuring a career official’s regular promotion, and was undisturbed by the new administration for nearly eleven months, indicating its legitimacy. The Court emphasized the constitutional protection afforded to career civil servants against removal without cause, upholding the principle that appointments made in good faith and with deliberation before the change of administration are valid. Allegations of voluntary relinquishment were rejected, as Jorge’s protests and courteous conduct did not constitute abandonment. The writs were granted, ordering respondent to turn over the office to petitioner.