G.R. No. L-25726 October 21, 1968
CESAR C. ALTAREJOS, petitioner, vs. TEODORO K. MOLO, Secretary of the Commission on Appointments, respondent.

FACTS

On July 24, 1964, petitioner Cesar C. Altarejos was given an ad interim appointment as Provincial Assessor for Masbate by the President and took his oath on August 1, 1964. His appointment was submitted to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation during the 1965 regular session of Congress and was confirmed on May 19, 1965. Later that same day, Congressman Jose M. Aldeguer, a member of the Commission, filed a motion for reconsideration of the confirmation. The next day, May 20, 1965, the Commission, before Congress adjourned sine die, approved a motion by Senator Francisco Rodrigo to lay on the table “all pending motions for reconsideration and any and all motions for reconsideration that might be filed within the reglementary period.” Congress adjourned sine die on May 20 but held a special session from May 21 to June 24, 1965. On May 27, 1965, Congressman Aldeguer withdrew his motion for reconsideration and directed the respondent Secretary, Teodoro K. Molo, to issue the corresponding certificate of confirmation. Respondent refused to issue the certificate, prompting petitioner to file an original action for mandamus to compel its issuance and to recover damages.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Secretary of the Commission on Appointments has a ministerial duty to issue a certificate of confirmation for petitioner’s appointment, given the filing and subsequent disposition of a motion for reconsideration.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the writ of mandamus. The filing of a motion for reconsideration does not automatically recall or nullify a confirmation; it merely suspends the action pending a majority vote for reconsideration as per Rule 21 of the Revised Rules of the Commission. The motion for reconsideration in this case was laid on the table by the Commission before adjournment, which constitutes a final disposition as if no motion was filed, pursuant to Rule 21 and the precedent in Quimsing v. Tajanlangit. Furthermore, the motion was subsequently withdrawn. The Court also cited the Commission’s own minutes where the Chairman ruled that upon sine die adjournment, unacted motions for reconsideration are not approved and have no effect, allowing the confirmation to stand. The claim for damages was denied for lack of proof of actual damages and because respondent was sued in his official capacity without evidence of bad faith. The duty to certify the Commission’s resolutions is ministerial, and respondent was directed to issue the certificate of confirmation.