G.R. No. L-20033; November 29, 1963
DOMICIANO F. VALER, petitioner, vs. CELERINO O. BRIONES, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Domiciano F. Valer was an ad interim appointee confirmed as a member of the Board of Directors of the Abaca Corporation of the Philippines, serving from December 22, 1958, until his term expired on July 28, 1961. On August 8, 1961, he was designated as an “acting member” of the same Board, allowing him to continue performing its functions. On June 22, 1962, respondent Celerino O. Briones received an ad interim appointment to the same office, vice Valer, for a term expiring July 28, 1964, and assumed office on June 26, 1962.
Valer claims entitlement to the office, asserting that on November 6, 1961, the former President issued him a second ad interim appointment, which the Commission on Appointments confirmed on April 27, 1962, and under which he took his oath on May 12, 1962. However, this second appointment was not released until December 29 or 30, 1961. On December 31, 1961, the new President issued Administrative Order No. 2, recalling all ad interim appointments made or released by his predecessor after December 13, 1961. Furthermore, in a January 24, 1962 indorsement, Valer himself disclaimed knowledge of this December 1961 appointment and stated he had not accepted or taken an oath under it.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Domiciano F. Valer is entitled to the office of member of the Board of Directors of the Abaca Corporation of the Philippines, thereby ousting respondent Celerino O. Briones via a writ of quo warranto.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that Valer is not entitled to the office. The legal logic proceeds on two primary grounds. First, the Court applied the doctrine established in Aytona v. Castillo, which governs the recall of “midnight appointments.” Valer’s second ad interim appointment, issued in November 1961 but released only in late December 1961, after the cutoff date of December 13, 1961, set by the incoming administration, was validly recalled and cancelled by the new President’s Administrative Order No. 2. Consequently, this appointment conferred no valid right to the office.
Second, Valer’s claim based solely on his August 8, 1961 designation as “acting member” is unavailing. The Court reiterated settled jurisprudence that a designation or appointment as an “acting” officer is inherently temporary and revocable at the pleasure of the appointing authority. This principle, cited from cases like Austria v. Amante and Mendez v. Ganzon, means such a designation does not confer a secure tenure. Therefore, the subsequent ad interim appointment of respondent Briones legally constituted a revocation of Valer’s temporary “acting” designation. Since Valer possessed no valid permanent appointment and his temporary designation was lawfully revoked, he has no legal right to the office, and Briones’ appointment and assumption of duties are valid. The petition for quo warranto was thus denied.