You are on page 1of 1

DOMINADOR R. AYTONA vs. ANDRES V. CASTILLO, ET AL.

,
G.R. No. L-19313
January 19, 1962
BENGZON, C.J.
Facts
Petitioner Dominador R. Aytona was appointed by then President Carlos Garcia as ad interim
Governor of the Central Bank on December 29, 1961. On the same day, President-elect Diosdado
Macapagal assumed office and two days later, issued Administrative Order 2, recalling,
withdrawing, and cancelling all 350 ad interim "midnight" appointments made by President
Garcia after December 13, 1961. On January 1, 1962, respondent Andres Castillo was appointed
as ad interim Governor of the Central Bank. Both petitioner and respondent exercised the powers
of their office. However, Aytona was later prevented from holding office. Thus, this quo warranto
proceeding.
Issue
Whether or not Administrative Order No. 2 is valid in recalling, withdrawing, and cancelling all
ad interim appointment made by then President Garcia
Ruling
Yes. It is common sense to believe that after the proclamation of the election of President
Macapagal, his was no more than a "care-taker" administration. He was duty bound to prepare
for the orderly transfer of authority the incoming President, and he should not do acts which he
ought to know, would embarrass or obstruct the policies of his successor. Normally, when the
President makes appointments the consent of the Commission on Appointments, he has benefit
of their advice. When he makes ad interim appointments, he exercises a special prerogative and
is bound to be prudent to insure approval of his selection either previous consultation with the
members of the Commission or by thereafter explaining to them the reason such selection.
Where, however, as in this case, the Commission on Appointments that will consider the
appointees is different from that existing at the time of the appointment and where the names are
to be submitted by successor, who may not wholly approve of the selections, the President
should be doubly careful in extending such appointments. The Court is aware of many
precedents to the effect that once an appointment has been issued, it cannot be reconsidered,
specially where the appointee has qualified. But none of them refer to mass ad interim
appointments, issued in the last hours of an outgoing Chief Executive, in a setting similar to that
outlined herein. On the other hand, the authorities admit of exceptional circumstances justifying
revocation and if any circumstances justify revocation, those described herein should fit the
exception. Now, it is hard to believe that in signing 350 appointments in one night, President
Garcia exercised such "double care" which was required and expected of him; and therefore,
there seems to be force to the contention that these appointments fall beyond the intent and spirit
of the constitutional provision granting to the Executive authority to issue ad interim
appointments. The Court hereby dismisses the action.

Tj G. Santiago Block 1B