G.R. No. L-128; March 2, 1946
JOSE GUEKEKO, petitioner, vs. TEOFILO C. SANTOS, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Jose Guekeko was elected Mayor of Malabon, Rizal, in the general election of December 10, 1940, and qualified in January 1941. Respondent Teofilo C. Santos filed an election protest, which was decided against him in the Court of First Instance; his appeal to the Court of Appeals remained undecided at the time of this case. Guekeko held the office throughout the Japanese occupation until February 27, 1945, when he vacated it upon the official restoration of the Commonwealth Government. On November 5, 1945, Santos was appointed Acting Mayor by the President and qualified on November 9, 1945. Guekeko filed this petition to oust Santos, claiming entitlement to the office on three grounds: (1) his term had not expired because the Japanese occupation period should not be counted; (2) assuming the term expired, the President should have appointed him under section 16(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 357 , as he belonged to the Nacionalista party; and (3) under the President’s announced policy, pre-war elected officials should be reinstated unless strong reasons exist otherwise.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Jose Guekeko is entitled to the office of Mayor of Malabon, thereby entitling him to oust respondent Teofilo C. Santos via quo warranto.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that Guekeko is not entitled to the office and has no right to institute quo warranto against Santos. The Court ruled on each ground as follows: (1) The term of office is distinct from tenure; the term is fixed and not extended by war, even if the incumbent served during occupation. Thus, Guekeko’s term expired on December 31, 1943, and he had no right to hold over. (2) Section 16(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 357 applies only to vacancies occurring during the term of office, not after its expiration. Since the vacancy here occurred after the term expired, that provision does not apply. Even if it did, the President is not legally required to appoint a specific party member. (3) The President’s announced policy to reinstate pre-war officials does not confer a legal right to appointment, as it is discretionary and not a legal obligation. The Court emphasized that the repeal of hold-over provisions in the Administrative Code by Commonwealth Act No. 357 shows a manifest legislative intent to suppress hold-over for elective municipal, city, and provincial officers. Therefore, Santos’s appointment was valid, and Guekeko’s claims lack merit.