Valencia vs. Peralta

A person claiming title to a public office must clearly prove the existence and date of a valid appointment and a qualifying oath taken under it; a mere acting designation, being revocable and temporary, cannot ripen into a permanent appointment even if later confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, because confirmation presupposes a valid nomination or recess appointment.

The dispute concerns the chairmanship of the Board of Directors of the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NAWASA), a position filled by presidential appointment and subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. Petitioner Elpidio Valencia and respondent Macario Peralta, Jr. were rival claimants to that office. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 1383 fixes the term of the NAWASA Chairman at six years, and the case turns on the legal effect of the appointments and designations made to that position.

The controversy centered on the chairmanship of the Board of Directors of the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NAWASA). On 4 October 1961, then President Carlos P. Garcia designated Elpidio Valencia as Acting Chairman of the NAWASA Board of Directors. Allegedly upon information that President Garcia had extended him an ad interim appointment, Valencia took an oath of office on 25 October 1961 "to the position of Chairman Ad Interim, Board of Directors, National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority." The oath was in the usual form and substance and was subscribed and sworn to before President Garcia.

On 27 April 1962, the Commission on Appointments confirmed the appointment of Secretary Valencia "as Chairman of the Board . . . for a term expiring 20 July 1967 . . .". On 2 June 1962, respondent Secretary of National Defense Macario Peralta, Jr. was appointed ad interim to the same position by President Diosdado Macapagal. Thereafter, Valencia ceased to attend any board meeting, and on 9 February 1963 he instituted the present petition.

Valencia challenged the legality of Peralta's appointment on the ground that the position was not vacant, since he had neither resigned nor been removed for cause, and that because he assumed office on 25 October 1961, his tenure would expire on 25 October 1967, a term of six years fixed in Section 3 of Republic Act No. 1383. In a verified answer, the Solicitor General interposed several defenses: (a) the only appointment extended to Valencia was as Acting Chairman dated 4 October 1961, and he accepted the office in that acting capacity; (b) respondent denied, for lack of sufficient information, that Valencia took his oath upon information from former President Garcia that an ad interim appointment had been extended; (c) the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments produced no legal effect because there was no valid appointment; and (d) while an ad interim appointment was prepared for Valencia on 25 December 1961 but ante-dated 6 November 1961, it was never released to him, the original remained with the Office of the President, and it was covered by Administrative Order No. 2 of President Macapagal withdrawing and recalling all "midnight appointments" made by the former President.

The record also showed that the letter of transmission received by the Commission on Appointments recited: "Hon. Elpidio Valencia, as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority, for a term expiring July 20, 1967, date of appointment November 6, 1961." The Secretary of the Commission certified that the body, on 27 April 1962, confirmed Valencia's appointment of 6 November 1961. The certificate of the Office of the President stated that the draft of Valencia's ad interim appointment, dated 6 November 1961, was processed on 25 December 1961 but was not released and remained in that office. The only written designation of Valencia on record was his designation as Acting Chairman dated 4 October 1961.

• Vacancy and Security of Tenure: Petitioner argued that the position was not vacant because he had neither resigned nor been removed for cause, and that since he assumed office on 25 October 1961, his tenure would expire on 25 October 1967 under the six-year term fixed by Section 3 of Republic Act No. 1383.
• Implied Ad Interim Appointment: Petitioner maintained that his oath of office as Chairman Ad Interim and the subsequent confirmation by the Commission on Appointments implied a prior ad interim appointment and established his title to the office.

• Only Acting Designation: Respondent countered that the only appointment extended to Valencia was as Acting Chairman dated 4 October 1961, and that Valencia accepted the office in that acting capacity.
• No Valid Appointment to Confirm: Respondent argued that the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments produced no legal effect because there was no valid appointment to confirm.
• Unreleased and Withdrawn Appointment: Respondent asserted that any ad interim appointment prepared for Valencia on 25 December 1961 but ante-dated 6 November 1961 was never released to him, remained with the Office of the President, and was covered by Administrative Order No. 2 withdrawing and recalling all "midnight appointments" made by former President Garcia.
• Lack of Information: Respondent denied, for lack of sufficient information, that Valencia took his oath upon information from former President Garcia that an ad interim appointment had been extended.

• Petitioner's Title to Office: Whether Valencia established a valid appointment and qualifying oath entitling him to the position of Chairman of the NAWASA Board of Directors.
• Effect of Acting Designation and Confirmation: Whether Valencia's designation as Acting Chairman, coupled with his oath as Chairman Ad Interim and the Commission on Appointments' confirmation, ripened into a valid permanent appointment.
• Legality of Respondent's Appointment: Whether Peralta's ad interim appointment was unlawful because the position was not vacant, Valencia not having resigned or been removed for cause.

• Petitioner's Title to Office: No. The only reliable evidence showed a revocable and temporary designation as Acting Chairman, which could not ripen into a permanent appointment; petitioner failed to clearly prove the kind and date of any valid appointment.
• Effect of Acting Designation and Confirmation: No. Confirmation presupposes a valid nomination or recess appointment, and no such valid appointment was shown; the oath as ad interim did not correspond to the acting designation.
• Legality of Respondent's Appointment: The petition failed. Because petitioner did not establish his own title, his challenge to respondent's appointment on the ground that the office was not vacant could not succeed.

• Petitioner's Title to Office: The Court found no merit in petitioner's case. The only choice supported by reliable evidence was Valencia's designation as Acting Chairman of the NAWASA Board of Directors. That designation was revocable and temporary and could not ripen into a permanent appointment, even if subsequently confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, because confirmation presupposes a valid nomination or recess appointment, of which there was no trace. The oath of office taken on 25 October 1961 as an ad interim appointee did not help Valencia because the oath did not correspond to the temporary designation as Acting Chairman. It was incumbent upon petitioner to clearly prove under what kind of appointment he obtained title to the office, if any, and when such appointment was made. The better rule requires some kind of written memorial that could render title to public office indubitable, rather than reliance on verbal declarations or implied designations. The records showed that the letter of transmission to the Commission on Appointments recited a date of appointment of 6 November 1961; the Commission confirmed petitioner's appointment of 6 November 1961; and the Office of the President certified that the draft ad interim appointment dated 6 November 1961 was processed on 25 December 1961 but was not released and remained in that office. Since there could not be two appointments for the same position, either an ad interim appointment preceded the oath of 25 October 1961 and lapsed because it was not confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, or the appointment was made only on 6 November 1961, was duly confirmed, but also lapsed because Valencia never took a qualifying oath of office under it. He could not have qualified by taking an oath on 25 October 1961, ten days before the appointment was extended. The only written designation on record was the mere Acting Chairman designation dated 4 October 1961, which was not permanent, was revocable at any time by the Chief Executive, and was actually revoked by the subsequent designation of respondent Peralta. Thus, petitioner failed to establish title to the office he claimed.
• Effect of Acting Designation and Confirmation: Confirmation by the Commission on Appointments presupposes a valid nomination or recess appointment. Because no valid appointment was shown, the confirmation produced no legal effect. The confirmation of the 6 November 1961 appointment could not validate an oath taken on 25 October 1961, before the appointment was extended, and the oath as ad interim could not qualify Valencia under the acting designation.
• Legality of Respondent's Appointment: The petition for quo warranto was denied, with costs against petitioner, because Valencia failed to establish title to the office. The acting designation he held was revocable and temporary and had been revoked by the subsequent designation of Peralta. In light of the failure to establish petitioner's own title, the challenge to respondent's appointment on the ground that the office was not vacant could not succeed.

• Title to Public Office Must Be Clearly Proved — A person claiming title to a public office must clearly prove the kind and date of the appointment and a valid qualifying oath taken under it. The Court applied this rule by holding that Valencia's oath and confirmation did not establish title because the only reliable written designation was a temporary acting appointment, and the records did not show a valid ad interim appointment.
• Acting Designation Is Revocable and Temporary — A designation as acting chairman is revocable and temporary and cannot ripen into a permanent appointment even if subsequently confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. The Court applied this doctrine to Valencia's 4 October 1961 designation as Acting Chairman, which was revocable at any time and was actually revoked by the subsequent designation of Peralta.
• Confirmation Presupposes a Valid Appointment — Confirmation by the Commission on Appointments presupposes a valid nomination or recess appointment. Because no valid appointment was shown, the confirmation of Valencia's purported appointment produced no legal effect.
• Qualifying Oath Must Correspond to the Appointment — An oath of office must correspond to the appointment under which the officer claims title. Valencia's oath as Chairman Ad Interim did not correspond to his acting designation, and his oath on 25 October 1961 could not qualify him under an appointment dated 6 November 1961.
• Ad Interim Appointment Lapses Without Confirmation or Qualifying Oath — An ad interim appointment lapses if it is not confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, or if it is confirmed but the appointee never takes a qualifying oath under it. The Court applied this by noting that either the ad interim appointment preceded the oath and lapsed for lack of confirmation, or it was made on 6 November 1961 and lapsed because no qualifying oath was taken under it.

• "The only choice of which there is any reliable evidence on record is his designation as Acting Chairman of the NAWASA Board of Directors. This designation, being of revocable and temporary character, could not ripen into a permanent appointment, even if it was subsequently confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, because confirmation presupposes a valid nomination or recess appointment, of which there is no trace." — This passage states the ratio decidendi: the acting designation could not become a permanent appointment and confirmation did not cure the absence of a valid appointment.
• "It would be unfortunate if the title to office of one upon whose official acts public interests and private rights hinged, did or could be made to depend upon the verbal declarations and statements of the person having the power to make the appointment, to be proved by parol and liable to be forgotten, misunderstood or misreported, subject to all the contingencies and infirmities which are incident to verbal evidence or evidence by parol, so pregnant of mischief and misfortune as to have led to the enactment of the statute of frauds." — Quoted by the Court from People vs. Murray, this passage supports the requirement of a written memorial for title to public office and the rejection of verbal or implied appointments.
• "Since there could not be two appointments for the same position, we are now faced with a most intriguing situation: If an ad interim appointment existed, either it preceded the petitioner's oath of office of 25 October 1961, and it lapsed because it was not confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, or else the appointment was only made on 6 November 1961, was duly confirmed, but also lapsed because petitioner Valencia never took a qualifying oath of office under it." — This passage explains why neither possible chronology gave Valencia a valid title to the office.
• "With the confusion surrounding petitioner's case, the Court has no alternative but to declare that the petitioner has failed to establish title to the office he claims." — This passage summarizes the dispositive rationale for denying the quo warranto petition.

• People vs. Murray, 70 N.Y. 521 — Cited in Mechem, Public Offices, pp. 50-51, and relied upon by the Court for the rule that title to public office should be authenticated by a written memorial and should not depend on verbal declarations or parol evidence. The Court used this citation to reject petitioner's reliance on an implied or verbal ad interim appointment.
• Aytona vs. Castillo, et al., G.R. No. L-19313, 19 January 1962 — Cited in Justice Padilla's separate concurring opinion for the proposition that, even assuming Valencia had been appointed ad interim, his appointment lapsed on 30 December 1961 for the reasons stated in that case.

• Section 3, Republic Act No. 1383 — Invoked by petitioner as fixing the term of the NAWASA Chairman at six years, under which he claimed a tenure expiring on 25 October 1967. The Court did not sustain the claim because petitioner failed to establish a valid appointment to the office in the first place.
• Administrative Order No. 2 — Issued by President Macapagal, it withdrew and recalled all "midnight appointments" made by former President Garcia. The Solicitor General invoked it in arguing that the unreleased ad interim appointment prepared for Valencia was withdrawn and could not support his claim.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concurred. Padilla, J., filed a separate concurring opinion, stating that even assuming petitioner had been appointed ad interim, his appointment lapsed on 30 December 1961 for the reasons stated in his concurring opinion in Aytona vs. Castillo, et al., G.R. No. L-19313, 19 January 1962.