G.R. No. L-20485; November 29, 1963
DEMETRIO M. BATARIO, JR., petitioner, vs. JOSE J. PARENTELA, JR., respondent.

FACTS

On December 13, 1961, President Carlos P. Garcia extended an ad-interim appointment to petitioner Demetrio M. Batario, Jr. as Justice of the Peace of Sariaya, Quezon. The position was then occupied by Dionisio Q. Vendiola, who was due for compulsory retirement on December 26, 1961. Batario took his oath and assumed office on December 27, 1961, following Vendiola’s retirement. His ad-interim appointment was later confirmed by the Commission on Appointments on May 14, 1962.
Subsequently, on October 1962, President Diosdado Macapagal issued an ad-interim appointment to respondent Jose J. Parentela, Jr. for the same position. Parentela assumed office on October 30, 1962, and his appointment was confirmed on May 23, 1963. Batario then filed a petition for quo warranto, asserting he was the de jure Justice of the Peace and that Parentela was unlawfully usurping the office.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Demetrio M. Batario, Jr. has established a clear right to the office of Justice of the Peace of Sariaya, thereby entitling him to the writ of quo warranto.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling that Batario failed to establish a clear right to the office. In a quo warranto proceeding, the petitioner must demonstrate a clear title to the office allegedly usurped. The Court found Batario lacked the requisite qualifications at the time of his ad-interim appointment. Republic Act No. 2613 required an appointee to have been admitted to the Philippine Bar and to have practiced law for at least three years. Batario was admitted to the Bar only on May 9, 1959. Consequently, on December 13, 1961, the date of his appointment, he had only been in practice for about two years and seven months, which was short of the statutory three-year requirement. This deficiency persisted even on December 26, 1961, when he took his oath.
Batario argued this disqualification was cured by the subsequent confirmation of his appointment on May 14, 1962, by which time he allegedly met the three-year requirement. The Court rejected this argument. The validity of an appointment is determined at its inception. An ad-interim appointment made to one who is not qualified at the time is invalid from the beginning. Subsequent confirmation cannot validate an initially void appointment. Since Batario’s appointment was void ab initio, he never acquired legal title to the office. Therefore, he could not maintain the quo warranto action against respondent Parentela, who held a later, valid appointment. The writ was denied.