G.R. No. L-25577 - Guevara vs. Inocentes

Onofre P. Guevara, petitioner, received an ad interim appointment as Undersecretary of Labor dated November 18, 1965 and took his oath on November 25, 1965.
Raoul M. Inocentes, respondent, received an ad interim appointment for the same position from the incumbent Executive on January 23, 1966.
The incumbent Executive issued Memorandum Circular No. 8 on January 23, 1966 declaring all ad interim appointments made by the former Executive as having lapsed with the adjournment of the special session of Congress at about midnight of January 22, 1966.
Petitioner filed a petition for quo warranto before this Court seeking declaration that he was legally entitled to the office of Undersecretary of Labor.

Petitioner relied on Article VII, Section 10(4) of the Constitution to contend his ad interim appointment remained effective until either (a) express disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or (b) the adjournment of the regular session of Congress of 1966.
Petitioner asserted no express disapproval occurred because the Commission on Appointments was never constituted during the special session called by Proclamation No. 2, series of 1966.
Petitioner asserted there had been no adjournment of Congress within the constitutional meaning because:

the House suspended the special session on January 22, 1966 at 10:55 p.m. to be resumed on January 24, 1966 at 10:00 a.m.;
the Senate resolution of adjournment sine die approved on January 23, 1966 was not the adjournment contemplated in Article VII, Section 10(4);
the House suspension or the Senate adjournment to resume on January 24, 1966 meant the end of the special session and the start of the regular session as a continuous session without interruption; and
the phrase "until the next adjournment of the Congress" must be read in relation to the Commission so that the adjournment contemplated refers to a regular session during which the Commission may be organized.

Respondent contended petitioner's ad interim appointment lapsed when Congress adjourned its last special session under Proclamation No. 2 of President Marcos.
Respondent argued an ad interim appointment ceases after each term of Congress and thus petitioner’s appointment lapsed as early as December 30, 1965.
Respondent pleaded that petitioner’s appointment and others made under similar circumstances were contrary to morals, good customs and public policy and therefore null and void.
Respondent invoked Rodriguez, Jr. vs. Quirino, G. R. No. L-19800, October 28, 1953 as grounds to void petitioner’s appointment.

Whether petitioner’s ad interim appointment as Undersecretary of Labor lapsed upon the adjournment of the special session of Congress at about midnight of January 22, 1966 under Article VII, Section 10(4) of the Constitution.

Whether the clause "until the next adjournment of the Congress" in Article VII, Section 10(4) refers only to an adjournment of a regular session and thus excludes adjournment of a special session.
Whether the "next adjournment" requires that the Commission on Appointments be organized and have an opportunity to act before adjournment operates to terminate an ad interim appointment.
Whether an adjournment by one House (the Senate) while the other House (the House of Representatives) suspends session nevertheless constitutes an adjournment of "Congress" for purposes of terminating ad interim appointments.
Whether the sufficiency of time for the Commission on Appointments during a session aff...(Subscriber-Only)