Aytona v.
Castillo time from the adjournment of the Congres to
Date: January 19, 1962
Petitioner: Dominador Aytona
Respondent: Andres Castillo et al
Nature: Action for quo warranto
Ponente: Bengzon
Facts:
‐ Dec 29, 1961: Pres. Carlos P. Garcia appointed
Dominador Aytona as ad interim Governor of
Central Bank. Aytona took oath on same day.
Pres Garcia also appointed numerous others
amounting to 350 “midnight” appointments.
Pres. Garcia sent to Commission on
Appointments which was not in session, the
appointments for confirmation.
‐ Dec 30, 1961 (noon): Pres. Diosdado
Macapagal assumed office.
‐ Dec 31, 1961: Pres. Macapagal issued Admin
Order No. 2 recalling all ad interim
appointments made by Pres Garcia after Dec
13, 1961 (when Pres. Macapagal was
proclaimed by Congress) up to Dec 31, 1961.
‐ Jan 1,1962: Pres. Macapagal proclaimed
Castillo as ad interim Governor of Central Bank.
Castillo qualified immediately.
Issue: WON an ad interim appointment done by
an outgoing President is valid and effective
when such appointment is done when the
Congress has already adjourned. [NO]
Ratio:
‐ After the proclamation of the new president
by Congress, the incumbent president is no
more than a “care-taker”.
‐ The Commission of Appointments that will
consider the appointees is different from that
existing at the time of the appointment.
‐ Under Padilla’s concurring opinion:
The term “recess” in Sec 10(4) Art VII of Consti
(Now Sec 16(2) Art VII of Consti) is the period of
the opening session, regular or special, of the
same Congress.
‐ Under Bautista’s concurring opinion: Term
“recess” means a temporary dismissal and not
adjournment sine die. COA is not a continuing
body but one that co-exists with Congress that
has created it. When the Congress has
adjourned sine die, the COA cease to exist until
the next session of the new Congress.
Disposition: Action dismissed.
Dissenting Opinions
Concepcion:
‐ An ad interim appointment, made during
recess of Congress, is complete and irrevocable
upon the performance of the last act required
by law from the appointing power, even w/o
previous notice to the appointee, or acceptance
by him, or without subsequent action of the
legislative dep’t that may terminate its
effectivity.
‐ There is a difference between nomination and
appointment. In appointment, it is final and
conclusive without confirmation.
‐ COA being a continuing or a not does not
affect the determination of the case.
‐ Sec 4 Art XII of Consti (now Sec 2(3) Art IX)
provides “no officer or employee in Civil Service
shall be removed except for cause as provided
by law.” In Erana v Vergel De Dios, it was stated
that revocation of an appointment should be
communicated to appointee before the
moment he qualified and that revocation
thereafter is tantamount to removal and must
be judged according to rules applicable to
removal. In present case, the petitioner has
already qualified, therefore, the revocation of
his appointment should have been subjected to
the rules on removal.
‐ This is a political case involving wisdom of
executive in making the numerous
appointments. It should not have been
adjudicated.

Barrera:
‐ Citing Hinds Precedents of the House of
Representatives, a legislative interpretation by
the US Senate, recess shall mean Congress is
not in session. PERIOD. There should be no
distinction between sessions of one congress to
that of another. When the law makes no
distinction, no distinction should be made.

‐ Concurs with Justice Concepcion’s stand that

the case involves a political question. The
remedy is with the Commission on
Appointments to which the appointments have
been submitted.