GR L 32991; (June, 1972) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-32991 June 29, 1972
SALVADOR P. LOPEZ, et al., petitioners, vs. HON. VICENTE ERICTA, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Dr. Consuelo S. Blanco was given an ad interim appointment as Dean of the UP College of Education by University President Salvador P. Lopez, effective May 1, 1970, subject to Board of Regents approval. The Board deferred action on May 26, 1970, and President Lopez issued a second ad interim appointment. At the July 9, 1970 Board meeting, her appointment was submitted for consideration. A roll-call vote resulted in 4 votes in favor, 2 against, and 3 abstentions. The Board Chairman ruled she did not obtain the necessary votes for election. Subsequently, a motion for reconsideration was approved without dissent, effectively withdrawing the nomination. Dr. Blanco filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of First Instance, which declared her the duly elected Dean, a decision now on appeal.
ISSUE
Whether Dr. Consuelo S. Blanco was duly elected as Dean by the UP Board of Regents during its July 9, 1970 meeting.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision. The legal logic centers on the proper interpretation of the Board’s actions and voting results. Under the UP Charter, the Dean is elected by the Board on nomination by the President. The Court found that the 4 affirmative votes from the 9-member Board did not constitute a majority required for a valid election. Abstentions cannot be counted as affirmative votes to constitute a majority, as they indicate a refusal to take a position. Crucially, the subsequent unanimous approval of a motion for reconsideration of the nomination, without any dissent, legally resulted in the withdrawal of President Lopez’s nomination of Dr. Blanco. With the nomination withdrawn, there was no longer any proposal before the Board upon which to base an election. Therefore, Dr. Blanco was not duly elected, and her ad interim appointment was effectively terminated by the Board’s action. The Court made permanent the preliminary injunction against the execution of the lower court’s judgment.