G.R. No. L-19800; October 28, 1963
ERNESTO R. RODRIGUEZ, JR., petitioner, vs. CARLOS QUIRINO, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Ernesto Rodriguez, Jr. was appointed ad interim as Director of Public Libraries by President Carlos P. Garcia on June 1, 1961. However, this appointment was not communicated to him until December 30, 1961, via a telegram sent at 5:20 p.m., the same day President Diosdado Macapagal assumed office at noon. Rodriguez took his oath of office on January 5, 1962, before a notary public whose commission had expired, and the oath was not recorded. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Aytona vs. Castillo, which upheld President Macapagal’s recall of “midnight appointments,” the Auditor General disallowed Rodriguez’s salary. Rodriguez protested, claiming his appointment was not a midnight appointment and that he had not qualified under it.
On April 27, 1962, the Commission on Appointments confirmed Rodriguez’s appointment, which had been submitted by former President Garcia in a letter dated December 26, 1961. Prior to this confirmation, on April 10, 1962, Rodriguez was informed that respondent Carlos Quirino had been designated as Acting Director by President Macapagal and was instructed to turn over the office. Rodriguez refused to vacate, leading Quirino to assume the duties, prompting Rodriguez to file this quo warranto petition.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Ernesto Rodriguez, Jr. has a valid title to the office of Director of Public Libraries.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling Rodriguez had no valid title. First, the Court found his appointment was a “midnight appointment” under the doctrine of Aytona vs. Castillo. Although dated June 1, 1961, it was kept secret and communicated only on the last day of President Garcia’s term, indicating the appointing power did not intend it to become operative until that late hour to circumvent the incoming administration.
Second, and more fundamentally, the ad interim appointment violated the intent and spirit of the Constitution. The constitutional power to make ad interim appointments is exceptional, justified only by a clear and present urgency to prevent an obstruction or paralyzation of governmental functions when the Commission on Appointments is not in session. Here, no such urgency existed. The appointment was made and communicated when Congress was about to reconvene, and the immediate days following were non-working holidays, allowing ample time for a regular appointment process. The purpose was not to address a real danger of an office remaining vacant but to exploit a constructive recess. Consequently, the appointment was void from the beginning (ab initio), and its subsequent confirmation could not cure this intrinsic defect. Additional irregularities, such as the defective oath of office and Rodriguez’s own conduct in initially claiming to hold the office only in an acting capacity, further undermined his claim.