EN BANC G.R. No.

L-21195 May 31, 1966

NANCY Q. SISON, as Vice-Gove !o o" #a!$asi!a!, petitioner and appellee, -versus#%&RO M. GIM%N%', as A()i*o Ge!e a+, ,ORG% AM-ROSIO, as # ovi!cia+ A()i*o o" #a!$asi!a!, a!) LIC%RIO #. S%N&AY&I%GO as # ovi!cia+ . eas( e o" #a!$asi!a!, respondents and appellants. Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz and Solicitor E. M. Salva for respondents and appellants. Sison Law Offices for petitioner and appellee. -ARR%RA, J.: This is an appeal by the Auditor General from the decision of the Court of First nstance of !an"asinan #in Civ. Case No. $%&&'- (, directin" therein respondents Auditor General, !rovincial Treasurer and Auditor of !an"asinan to pass in audit and encash all vouchers for per diem and allo)ances due to Nancy *. +ison, as ,ice-Governor of that province, for the period of from -anuary & to .ay %, $/0&, inclusive. There is no controversy as to the facts of this case. The position of ,ice-Governor of the province of !an"asinan )as considered vacated )hen Nancy *. +ison, )ho )as duly elected to that post, filed her certificate of candidacy and ran for Con"ress in the election of $/0$. 1avin" failed in her bid to )in the con"ressional seat, on 2ecember 3, $/0$, the !resident of the Nacionalista !arty to )hich .rs. +ison is affiliated, submitted her name to the !resident for appointment to the same position of ,iceGovernor vacated by her, pursuant to +ection &$#b( of the 4evised Election Code. This )as favorably considered, and on 2ecember &/, $/0$, !resident Garcia e5tended to her an ad interim appointment as ,ice-Governor of !an"asinan. .rs. +ison 6ualified on the same day, and immediately entered into the dischar"e of the duties and functions of the office. 7n account of the issuance by ne)ly-elected !resident .acapa"al of his !roclamation No. &, )ithdra)in", recallin", and declarin" )ithout effect all ad interim appointments e5tended or released by !resident Garcia after 2ecember $8, $/0$, the Auditor General denied the demand of .rs. +ison for payment of per diems and allo)ances due her as ,ice-Governor of !an"asinan. n the

meantime and presumably on the theory that her appointment by !resident Garcia had lapsed or )as invalid, .rs. +ison )as e5tended another ad interim appointment by !resident .acapa"al on .ay &%, $/0&. n vie) of the action ta9en by the Auditor General on her claim, .rs. +ison instituted mandamus proceedin" in the Court of First nstance of !an"asinan to compel therein respondents to pass in audit and encash all vouchers for per diems and allo)ances "ranted to her by la) and tradition, from -anuary to .ay, $/0&. Ans)erin" respondent Auditor General :ustified the denial of petitioner;s claim by the ar"ument that, as her ad interim appointment e5tended by !resident Garcia )as rendered inoperative and ineffective by !roclamation No. & of !resident .acapa"al, only her appointment by the latter on .ay &%, $/0& )as valid, under )hich she could en:oy allo)ances, salaries, emoluments and other privile"es appertainin" to the office of ,ice-Governor. 7n February &0, $/08, the court rendered the decision "rantin" the petition, )hich is the sub:ect of the present appeal. !laintiff-appellee )as e5tended an ad interim appointment by the !resident on 2ecember &/, $/0$, pursuant to +ection &$ #b( of the 4evised Election Code, )hich provides< #b( =henever in any elective local office a vacancy occurs as a result of the death, resi"nation, removal or cessation of the incumbent the !resident shall appoint thereto a suitable person belon"in" to the political party of the officer )hom he is to replace, upon the recommendation of said party, save in the case of a mayor, )hich shall be filled by the vice-mayor. Analy>in" the po)er of appointment "ranted to the !resident in the fore"oin" provisions of the 4evised Election Code, this Court, in the case of Ramos vs. Alvarez,$ said< 5 5 5 5 E5aminin" the provision of section &$#b( of the 4evised Election Code, )e find that )hile it says that the !resident shall ma9e the appointment, it does not say that the appointment is not to be sub:ect to the consent of the Commission on Appointments, that is, that it is to be made by the !resident alone. +uch bein" the case, the !resident;s appointment must be deemed sub:ect to the "eneral re6uirement that the same is to be )ith the consent of the Commission on Appointments. n other )ords, a person appointed by the !resident under +ection &$#b( of the 4evised Election Code )ould fall under the third "roup of officers mentioned in para"raph 8 of section $?, article , of the Constitution, &

namely, @those )hom he #the !resident( may be authori>ed by la) to appoint and, therefore, sub:ect to the re6uirement that the appointment shall be )ith the consent of the Commission on Appointments. ... . n other )ords, such an appointment is not one that the !resident alone can ma9e. +ince under the rulin" above-6uoted, appellee;s 2ecember &/, $/0$ appointment is necessarily ad interim, the 6uestion that should be resolved in this appear is )hether appellee;s appointment is covered by the pronouncement in the Aytona vs. Castillo8 case and, therefore, considered )ithdra)n, cancelled or invalidated by !roclamation No. & of !resident .acapa"al. t may be pointed out that the Aytona rulin did not cate"orically declare !roclamation No. & valid, and all of the so-called @midni"ht@ appointments invalid or ineffective.% t )as there clearly indicated that the decision and pronouncements therein made )ere more influenced by the doubtful character of the appointments themselves and not by the stren"th of the recall-order of the !resident.' Thus, this Court, in several instances,0 passed upon the validity of these @midni"ht@ appointments by ta9in" into consideration the particular circumstances and merit of every case. n the case at bar, appellee;s appointment to the position )as recommended by then +enate !resident 4odri"ue>, as president of the Nacionalista !arty, before 2ecember $8, $/0$, specifically on 2ecember 3, $/0$, in strict compliance )ith the specific provisions of +ection &$ #b( of the 4evised Election Code. Althou"h the appointment )as released only on 2ecember &/, $/0$, it cannot be vie)ed as one of those @rush appointments@ attended by @hurried maneuvers and other happenin"s@ )hich )ere the ob:ectionable features of the appointments declared irre"ular by the Aytona rulin". t can not also be char"ed that the appointment in dispute lac9ed the re6uired presidential deliberation on and consideration of appellee;s 6ualifications and suitability. Not only )as she recommended by the political party )hich has the ri"ht to nominate the person to fill the vacant position, but appellee had already occupied that post in her o)n ri"ht, by election. Certainly, appellee cannot be said to be un6ualified or unsuitable to hold the office. As a matter of fact, she )as e5tended another appointment to the same position by the very !resident )ho had issued the proclamation )hich is not the basis of appellants; denial of the claim of appellee. As .rs. +ison had immediately 6ualified to and dischar"ed the functions of the office on the basis of her valid ad interim appointment )hich is free from all taint of irre"ularity envisioned and in the Aytona case, she is entitled to the ri"hts and privile"es appertainin" thereto.

=herefore, in vie) of the fore"oin" considerations, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, and the respondents are hereby ordered to pass in audit and encash all vouchers for per diem andAor salary and allo)ances le"ally accruin" to appellee for the period -anuary to .ay, $/0&. No costs. +o ordered. !en zon" C.#." Concepcion" Reyes" #.!.L." $izon" Re ala" !en zon" #.%." &aldivar and Sanchez" ##." concur. %!)!o*es
$

G.4. No. B-3C3?, 7ct. 8?, $/''. @+EC. $?. ... #8( The !resident shall nominate and )ith the consent of the Commission on Appointments, shall appoint #$( the heads of the e5ecutive departments and bureausD #&( officers of the Army from the ran9 of colonel, of the Navy and Air forces from the ran9 of captain or commander, and #8( all other officers of the Government )hose appointments are not herein other)ise provided for, and those )hom he may be authori>ed by la) to appointD but the Con"ress may by la) vest the appointment of #%( inferior officers, in the !resident alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments. #Art. , , !hilippine Constitution(.

&

G.4. No. B-$/8$8, -an. $/, $/0&. .inute 4esolution of .arch 8?, $/0&D Aytona vs. Castillo, supra. Gillera v. Fernande>, G.4. No. B-&?3%$, -an. 8$, $/0%.

'

.errera v. Bi)a", G.4. No. B-&??3/, +ept. 8?, $/08D -or"e v. .ayor, G.4. No. B-&$330, Feb. &C, $/0%D *uimsin" v. Ta:an"lan"it, G.4. No. B-$//C$, Feb. &/, $/0%D Gillera v. Fernande>, supra.