G.R. No. L-10360 and L-10433; January 17, 1957
JULIANO A. ALBA, in his capacity as Acting Vice Mayor of Roxas City, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE JOSE D. EVANGELISTA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Capiz and VIVENCIO C. ALAJAR, respondents.

VIVENCIO C. ALAJAR, petitioner-appellee, vs. JULIANO A. ALBA, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

On January 1, 1954, Vivencio C. Alajar was appointed Vice-Mayor of Roxas City by the President, confirmed by the Commission on Appointments on March 31, 1954, and assumed office. In November 1955, the President, through an assistant executive secretary, informed Alajar that Juliano A. Alba had been designated as Acting Vice-Mayor in his stead and requested Alajar to turn over the office immediately. Alba took his oath and assumed office on November 19, 1955. Alajar then filed a quo warranto proceeding in the Court of First Instance of Capiz against Alba, contending that there was no vacancy, no legal cause for his removal, and that Alba usurped the office. The lower court ruled in favor of Alajar, holding he was entitled to remain in office until he resigns, dies, or is removed for cause. Alba appealed this decision. During the appeal, the lower court granted Alajar’s motion for immediate execution of the judgment. Alba then filed a petition for certiorari (G.R. No. L-10360) challenging the order for immediate execution. The Solicitor General intervened in the certiorari case to defend the constitutionality of Section 8 of Republic Act No. 603 . Alba’s appeal from the quo warranto decision was also given due course (G.R. No. L-10433).

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether, under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 603 (which provides that the Vice-Mayor of Roxas City shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments and shall hold office at the pleasure of the President), the President could legally replace Vivencio C. Alajar with Juliano A. Alba, with or without cause. A secondary issue in the certiorari case is whether the trial court had jurisdiction to order the immediate execution of its judgment after an appeal had been perfected.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Juliano A. Alba.
1. On the certiorari case (G.R. No. L-10360): The Court declared the trial court’s order for immediate execution null and void. It held that upon perfection of Alba’s appeal by filing a notice of appeal, the trial court lost jurisdiction over the case except for certain protective orders. Therefore, it had no jurisdiction to order execution of its judgment. The writ of preliminary injunction issued by the Supreme Court was made permanent.
2. On the main appeal (G.R. No. L-10433): The Court held that the President could legally replace Alajar with Alba. Section 8 of Republic Act No. 603 , which states the Vice-Mayor “shall hold office at the pleasure of the President,” is a valid exercise of legislative power. It creates an office with a tenure dependent upon the President’s pleasure. Consequently, the replacement of Alajar was not a “removal” from office in the constitutional sense (which requires cause), but merely the expiration of his tenure of office. When the President designated Alba as Acting Vice-Mayor, Alajar’s tenure terminated by operation of law. The Court distinguished the case from De los Santos vs. Mallare, noting that the provision in Republic Act No. 603 is a specific enactment dealing with the tenure of a particular office, not a general removal power. The decision of the lower court was reversed, and costs were taxed against Vivencio C. Alajar.
Separate Concurring Opinion (Justice Concepcion, concurred by Paras, C.J. and Montemayor, J.):
Justice Concepcion concurred but emphasized a distinction between “term” and “tenure.” He stated that Congress, by making the office holdable at the President’s pleasure, effectively allowed the President to fix the term of the office. When the President designated Alba, he implicitly fixed the expiration of Alajar’s term. Therefore, Alajar was not removed; his term simply expired. This qualification was made to clarify that the constitutional provision requiring cause for removal was not violated.