G.R. No. L-20864 – 118 Phil. 691 – 8 SCRA 692 – Political Law – Law on Public Officers – Ad Interim Appointment vs Appointment in Acting Capacity
In October 1961, Valencia was designated as acting chairman of the board of directors of the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NAWASA) by then President Carlos Garcia. He took his oath of office and in April 1962, the Commission on Appointments (COA) confirmed Valencia’s appointment. His tenure was set to expire in July 1967. But in June 1962, when President Diosdado Macapagal took power, he appointed Macario Peralta, Jr. as chairman of the board of NAWASA. Valencia now assails the appointment of Peralta on the ground that the office was not vacant and he was the incumbent chairman when Peralta was appointed. Valencia further contends that his appointment (by Garcia) is permanent because it was an ad interim appointment; that the oath he took was even for an ad interim appointment.
ISSUE: Whether or not the appointment of Peralta is valid.
HELD: Yes. Valencia’s appointment is merely temporary because he was designated as “acting” chairman only. This designation, being of revocable and temporary character, could not ripen into a permanent appointment, even if it was subsequently confirmed by the COA, because confirmation presupposes a valid nomination or recess appointment, of which there is no trace. His claim that his appointment is ad interim lacks proof. He did not show proof but he merely claimed that his appointment was ad interim. On the other hand, it was shown that apparently, there was found, in the Malacañang Palace, a draft purportedly for the ad interim appointment of Valencia however, said draft was never released hence Valencia was never appointed ad interim. Also, the oath he took is not valid because it did not correspond to his temporary appointment.
