G.R. No. L-19823; January 12, 1963
Ruperto Advincula and Braulio Avelino, petitioners, vs. Hon. Commission on Appointments and its Chairman the Hon. President of the Philippine Senate; Hon. Secretary of Justice; Hon. Judicial Superintendent, Department of Justice; Hon. Judge Cesario Golez; The Secretary of the Commission on Appointments, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Ruperto Advincula and Braulio Avelino sought a writ of mandamus to compel the recognition of their appointments as Judges of the Court of First Instance, which had been confirmed by the Commission on Appointments on Friday, April 27, 1962. The Commission subsequently reconsidered and effectively revoked these confirmations upon a motion filed on Monday, April 30, 1962. The petitioners argued that this reconsideration was void, as it violated Section 21 of the Revised Rules of the Commission, which allowed reconsideration “on motion by a member presented not more than one (1) day after their approval.” They contended that since the confirmation occurred on a Friday, the one-day period expired on Saturday, April 28, making the Monday motion untimely and rendering the confirmation final.
The Commission on Appointments, however, interpreted its own rule to mean one working day. It considered Saturday a non-working day, thereby making the motion filed on the following Monday timely. The petitioners’ mandamus petition was initially dismissed by the Court, prompting this motion for reconsideration where they argued that the constitutional provisions on legislative sessions should govern the Commission’s working days.

ISSUE

Whether the Commission on Appointments validly interpreted its rule (Section 21) such that the “one day” period for filing a motion for reconsideration of a confirmation refers to a working day, excluding Saturdays.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration and upheld the Commission’s interpretation. The legal logic rests on three key points. First, the constitutional provision (Section 9, Article VI) limiting congressional sessions to a specific number of days, exclusive of Sundays, applies only to Congress itself, not to the Commission on Appointments. The Commission is constituted after Congress organizes, making its sessions not coetaneous with Congress; therefore, the constitutional session rules are inapplicable.
Second, the Commission’s sessions are governed solely by Section 13, Article VI of the Constitution , which mandates only that it “shall meet only while the Congress is in session.” The frequency and duration of its meetings are left to its discretion. Thus, the Commission acted within its lawful authority in determining that its working days are from Monday to Friday, excluding Saturdays.
Third, this interpretation aligns with Republic Act No. 1880 , which established a standard 40-hour, five-day workweek for government offices. The Commission on Appointments is not among the offices exempted from this law. Consequently, Saturday was correctly deemed a non-working day. The Court deferred to the Commission’s reasonable construction of its own procedural rules and found no constitutional or statutory violation. The motion for reconsideration was denied.