Re: Seniority Among the Four Most Recent Appointments to the Position of Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals

Seniority and precedence among Court of Appeals Associate Justices are determined by the dates of their respective appointments as appearing on the commissions signed by the President, and only when two or more appointments bear the same date is the order in which they were issued by the President material, pursuant to Section 3, Chapter I of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by Republic Act No. 8246, which controls over conflicting provisions of the 2009 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals.

Myra G. Fernandez, Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., Ramon Paul L. Hernando, and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela were the four most recently appointed Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals whose relative seniority was disputed. Section 3, Chapter I of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Section 1 of Republic Act No. 8246, provides that Associate Justices shall have precedence according to the dates of their respective appointments, or when appointments bear the same date, according to the order in which they were issued by the President. Section 1, Rule I and Section 1, Rule II of the 2009 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals respectively refer to date and sequence of appointment and to order of appointments as officially transmitted to the Supreme Court.

On March 10, 2010, the Office of the President, through Executive Secretary Leandro R. Mendoza, transmitted to then Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno the appointment papers of Hon. Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, Hon. Myra G. Fernandez, Hon. Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., and Hon. Ramon Paul L. Hernando as Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals. In the transmittal letter they were listed in the order of Antonio-Valenzuela (No. 5), Fernandez (No. 6), Peralta, Jr. (No. 7), and Hernando (No. 8). Their appointment papers, however, bore different handwritten dates and mechanically-stamped bar code numbers: Fernandez, February 16, 2010, No. 55466; Peralta, Jr., February 16, 2010, No. 55467; Hernando, February 16, 2010, No. 55468; and Antonio-Valenzuela, February 24, 2010, No. 55465.

All four newly appointed Justices took their oath together before then Associate Justice, now Chief Justice, Renato C. Corona on March 10, 2010. After some initial confusion, they were listed in the roster in the order of Fernandez as most senior, followed by Peralta, Jr., Hernando, and Antonio-Valenzuela as most junior. That ranking rested on a March 25, 2010 letter of the CA Committee on Rules to CA Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., which found a conflict between Section 1, Rule I, referring to date and sequence of appointment, and Section 1, Rule II, referring to order of appointments as officially transmitted to the Supreme Court, and resolved it under Section 1 of Republic Act No. 8246 amending Section 3, Chapter I of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.

According to the Committee, Fernandez, Peralta, Jr., and Hernando, all appointed February 16, 2010, collectively outranked Antonio-Valenzuela, appointed February 24, 2010, notwithstanding her first placement in the transmittal letter and her lower bar code number. The Committee reasoned that the mechanically-stamped barcode, intended only to authenticate the papers, could not prevail over the date in the President's own handwriting, and that its interpretation should apply only to the four Justices in view of the peculiar circumstances attending issuance and transmission.

Justice Antonio-Valenzuela, for her part, insisted she was the most senior pursuant to Section 1, Rule II of the 2009 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, contending that the final act in appointing a member of the Judiciary is transmittal to the Supreme Court and taking serious exception to limiting the interpretation to the four appointees, there being nothing novel or peculiar about the issuance and transmission. The matter was referred to the CA en banc, which after deliberation adopted the Committee opinion, as approved by the Supreme Court in its July 20, 2010 resolution. Justice Antonio-Valenzuela then sought reconsideration, insisting all four were appointed on March 10, 2010, the day their appointments were transmitted by the Office of the President to the Court.

• Precedence Under 2009 IRCA: Petitioner maintained that she is the most senior among the four newly appointed CA Associate Justices pursuant to Section 1, Rule II of the 2009 IRCA, which provides that seniority shall be determined according to the order of their appointments as transmitted to the Supreme Court, where she was listed first and held the lowest bar code number.
• Date of Appointment as Date of Transmittal: Petitioner argued that the final act in the process of appointing a member of the Judiciary is the transmittal of the appointment to the Supreme Court, such that all four Justices were appointed on March 10, 2010, the day their appointments were transmitted by the Office of the President to the Court.
• No Peculiar Circumstances: Petitioner took serious exception to the CA Committee on Rules' statement that its interpretation should apply only to the four Justices, arguing that there was nothing novel or peculiar about the circumstances attending the issuance and transmission of their appointment papers.

• Governing Seniority Standard: Whether precedence and seniority among Court of Appeals Associate Justices is governed by Section 3, Chapter I of BP 129 as amended by RA 8246 or by Section 1, Rule II of the 2009 IRCA on order of appointments as transmitted to the Supreme Court.
• Date of Appointment: Whether the date of appointment for seniority purposes is the date appearing on the commission signed by the President or the March 10, 2010 date of transmittal of the appointment papers to the Supreme Court.
• Scope of Interpretation: Whether the interpretation fixing seniority by appointment date applies only to the four Justices concerned or generally.

• Governing Seniority Standard: Yes to statute. Precedence is governed by Section 3, Chapter I of BP 129 as amended by RA 8246, which controls over the 2009 IRCA, since rules implementing a law cannot override the law they implement.
• Date of Appointment: The date on the commission signed by the President. The appointment is complete once the last act required of the appointing authority is complied with, with transmittal serving only to facilitate effectivity upon receipt and acceptance.
• Scope of Interpretation: Generally applicable. The CA en banc acted correctly in adopting the Committee's reckoning but erred in declaring it applicable only to the four Justices.

• Governing Seniority Standard: Under Section 3, Chapter I of BP 129 as amended by RA 8246, Associate Justices have precedence according to the dates of their respective appointments, or when appointments bear the same date, according to the order in which they were issued by the President. Because the earlier the date of the commission, the more senior the appointee, and only same-dated appointments require resort to order of issuance, this statutory provision was applied to rank Justices Fernandez, Peralta, Jr., and Hernando, all dated February 16, 2010, by chronological order of issuance as reflected in the transmittal sequence and bar codes, ahead of Justice Antonio-Valenzuela dated February 24, 2010. Implementing rules must give way to the statute, so the IRCA's transmittal-order formula could not prevail.
• Date of Appointment: An appointment is the unequivocal act of one having authority designating an individual to perform the duties of an office, deemed complete once the last act required of the appointing authority has been complied with, with the signed commission as the written memorial rendering title indubitable and ready for delivery or transmission. Transmittal was therefore done after completion and was required only to facilitate effectivity through receipt and acceptance, not to complete the appointment. Hence the February 16 and February 24, 2010 dates in the President's handwriting prevailed over the March 10, 2010 transmittal letter signed by the Executive Secretary and over the mechanically-stamped bar codes intended merely for authentication.
• Scope of Interpretation: The statutory reckoning was not peculiar to the four appointments but stated the controlling rule for Court of Appeals seniority. Accordingly, limiting the Committee's interpretation to Fernandez, Peralta, Jr., Hernando, and Antonio-Valenzuela was rejected, while the resulting ranking itself was sustained and the motion for reconsideration denied with finality.

• Nature and completion of appointment to public office — An appointment is the unequivocal act of one having authority designating or selecting an individual to discharge the duties of an office or trust; where the power is absolute and the appointee determined upon, no further consent is necessary and the commission may issue at once, with the appointment deemed complete once the last act required of the appointing authority has been complied with. Applied to hold that the judiciary appointments were complete upon signing of the commissions by the President, with transmittal only facilitating effectivity by receipt and acceptance.
• Commission as written memorial of title to office — A written memorial that can render title to public office indubitable, known as the commission, is required; for completion purposes it is complete when signed by the executive, and sealed if necessary, and ready to be delivered or transmitted to the appointee. Applied to fix the appointment date as that appearing on the face of the commission signed by the President.
• Statutory precedence of Court of Appeals Associate Justices — Under Section 3, Chapter I of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended by Republic Act No. 8246, Associate Justices have precedence according to the dates of their respective appointments, or when appointments bear the same date, according to the order in which they were issued by the President. Applied to rank the three February 16, 2010 appointees by order of issuance ahead of the February 24, 2010 appointee, with earlier commission date conferring greater seniority.
• Supremacy of statute over implementing rules — Rules implementing a particular law cannot override but must give way to the law they seek to implement. Applied to prefer the BP 129 as amended by RA 8246 seniority formula over Section 1, Rule II of the 2009 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals based on order transmitted to the Supreme Court.

• "An appointment to a public office is the unequivocal act, of one who has the authority, of designating or selecting an individual to discharge and perform the duties and functions of an office or trust." — States the definition of appointment used to reject transmittal as the determinative act.
• "The appointment is deemed complete once the last act required of the appointing authority has been complied with." — States the completion rule supporting reliance on the date the President signed the commission.
• "Rules implementing a particular law cannot override but must give way to the law they seek to implement." — States the hierarchy applied to prefer RA 8246 over the conflicting 2009 IRCA seniority provisions.

• Chavez vs. Ronidel, G.R. No. 180941, 11 June 2009, 589 SCRA 103 — Cited for the definition of appointment to public office as the unequivocal designating act of the authority.
• Corpuz vs. Court of Appeals, 348 Phil. 801 (1998) — Cited for the rule that where appointing power is absolute, no further consent is needed and the commission may issue at once.
• Bermudez vs. Executive Secretary, 370 Phil. 769 (1999) — Cited for the rule that appointment is deemed complete once the last act required of the appointing authority is complied with.
• Valencia vs. Peralta, 118 Phil. 691 (1963) — Cited for requiring a written memorial or commission to render title to public office indubitable, complete when signed, sealed if necessary, and ready for delivery or transmission.

• Section 3, Chapter I, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Section 1, Republic Act No. 8246 — Provides that Court of Appeals Associate Justices shall have precedence according to dates of respective appointments, or when same-dated, according to order issued by the President; applied as controlling standard ranking the February 16, 2010 appointees ahead of the February 24, 2010 appointee.
• Section 1, Rule I, 2009 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals — Provides that date and sequence of appointment determine seniority courtwide; discussed as conflicting in application with Rule II but harmonized through the statute.
• Section 1, Rule II, 2009 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals — Provides that Associate Justices shall have precedence according to order of appointments as officially transmitted to the Supreme Court; held subordinate to the statute and therefore not determinative where appointment dates differ.

Carpio, Carpio Morales, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, and Sereno, JJ. concurred. Justice Carpio filed a separate concurring opinion agreeing that the February 16, 2010 appointees outrank the February 24, 2010 appointee and that statute prevails over the Internal Rules, while reasoning that appointment remains a process ending with acceptance, that seniority where dates differ must turn on the commission date rather than clerical bar codes, transmittal order, or date of acceptance, and that the transmittal-order rule applies only to same-dated appointments as the order of issuance by the President.