G.R. No. L-19313. January 19, 1962.
Dominador R. Aytona, petitioner, vs. Andres V. Castillo, et al., respondents.

FACTS

On December 29, 1961, outgoing President Carlos P. Garcia appointed Dominador R. Aytona as ad interim Governor of the Central Bank. Aytona took his oath the same day. On December 30, 1961, President-elect Diosdado Macapagal assumed office. The following day, December 31, President Macapagal issued Administrative Order No. 2, recalling and cancelling all ad interim appointments made by President Garcia after December 13, 1961. On January 1, 1962, President Macapagal appointed Andres V. Castillo as ad interim Governor of the Central Bank, who immediately qualified. A conflict arose when both Aytona and Castillo attempted to exercise the powers of the office, leading Aytona to file this quo warranto proceeding challenging Castillo’s right to the position.
The record revealed that President Garcia, on December 29, 1961, submitted around 350 “midnight” appointments to the Commission on Appointments, which was not in session. These appointments, including Aytona’s, were made in a scandalous hurry, with reports of a scramble in Malacañang, appointments not coursed through proper departments, and errors in designations. President Macapagal justified the revocation on grounds that the mass appointments subverted the spirit of ad interim appointments, prevented the new President from implementing his mandate, and were attended by irregular and unjust conditions.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether President Macapagal had the authority to revoke, via Administrative Order No. 2, the ad interim appointment of Aytona after Aytona had already taken his oath and qualified for the office.

RULING

The Supreme Court, in a resolution, upheld the revocation and dismissed Aytona’s petition. The legal logic centers on the nature of ad interim appointments and the discretionary power of the appointing authority. An ad interim appointment is effective until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of Congress. Crucially, it remains revocable at the pleasure of the appointing power before confirmation by the Commission. The Court found that President Macapagal’s recall of the appointments was a valid exercise of this revocatory power.
The Court emphasized that the circumstances surrounding the “midnight appointments”—their mass, hurried, and irregular character—placed them outside the intent and spirit of the constitutional provision for ad interim appointments. The outgoing President’s actions, made after the election and proclamation of a successor, were seen as an attempt to subvert the incoming administration’s policy-making prerogative. The Court ruled that while the appointments were technically made, the grave abuse of discretion and the violation of the constitutional spirit justified the incoming President’s corrective action. The revocation rendered the position vacant, allowing President Macapagal to validly appoint Castillo. The ruling affirms that ad interim appointments, until confirmed, are subject to executive recall, especially when tainted by abuse of authority.