G.R. No. L-21764 & L-21765 May 31, 1965
VICENTE CABILING, ET AL., petitioners-appellees, vs. EUSEBIO PABUALAN, ET AL., respondents-appellants. / TEODORO N. PEPITO, ET AL., petitioners-appellees, vs. LUCILO ALKUINO, ET AL., respondents-appellants.

FACTS

Two groups of petitioners-appellees were appointed to acting positions in newly created municipalities. In G.R. No. L-21765, Teodoro N. Pepito, Ernesto Garcia, and others were designated by President Garcia as Acting Mayor, Acting Vice-Mayor, and Acting Municipal Councilors of Valencia, Bukidnon, on August 10, 1960, and received new acting designations on May 19, 1961. In G.R. No. L-21764, Vicente Cabiling, Paulino Gonzales, and others were designated by President Garcia as Acting Mayor, Acting Vice-Mayor, and Acting Municipal Councilors of Dangcagan on September 28, 1961. They performed their duties and received salaries. On December 25, 1961, President Garcia signed ad interim appointments for these officials, antedated to June 1, 1961 (Valencia) and December 8, 1961 (Dangcagan), which were forwarded to the Commission on Appointments on December 26, 1961, and confirmed in May 1962. However, on December 31, 1961, President Macapagal issued Administrative Order No. 2, recalling all ad interim appointments extended by President Garcia after December 13, 1961. Subsequently, on June 6, 1962, President Macapagal extended acting appointments to new sets of officials for both municipalities. The original appointees filed petitions for quo warranto in the Court of First Instance of Bukidnon, claiming the right to the positions and assailing the validity of the new appointments. The trial court ruled in favor of the original appointees, declaring them the legal occupants of the positions. The new appointees appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the original “acting appointments” extended to the petitioners-appellees were permanent appointments that could not be validly withdrawn or superseded before the next regular election for the newly created municipalities.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and dismissed the petitions for quo warranto. The Court held that the power to appoint vested in the Chief Executive includes the power to make temporary or acting appointments, unless specifically prohibited by law. Section 10 of Republic Act No. 180, which governs appointments for newly created political divisions, merely gives the President the option to fill the offices by appointment and does not require that such appointments be permanent. The Court found that the petitioners-appellees were estopped from claiming their acting appointments were permanent, as they had accepted them without protest, and the subsequent attempt to convert them into ad interim appointments indicated they were originally intended to be acting. Furthermore, the ad interim appointments signed on December 25, 1961, were part of the “midnight appointments” voided under the Aytona doctrine, as they were made after December 13, 1961, and were recalled by President Macapagal’s Administrative Order No. 2. The Court also noted that the evidence showed these ad interim appointments had never been officially released, rendering the Commission on Appointments’ subsequent confirmation of no legal effect. Therefore, the petitioners-appellees had no valid claim to the positions against the new acting appointees of President Macapagal.