A.M. No. 2003-11-SC - Re: Gideon M. Alibang

Salvador P. Lopez, President of the University of the Philippines
The Board of Regents, University of the Philippines
Oseas del Rosario, Officer-in-Charge, College of Education, University of the Philippines

Hon. Vicente Ericta, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XVIII (Quezon City)
Dr. Consuelo S. Blanco, the individual asserting her right to the deanship

On April 27, 1970, the University President issued an ad interim appointment to Dr. Blanco effective May 1, 1970, which was conditioned upon Board of Regents’ approval and adherence to University regulations.
Dr. Blanco assumed office as ad interim Dean of the College of Education effective May 1, 1970.
The matter was later re-examined when President Lopez resubmitted her appointment for confirmation by the Board of Regents during their meeting on May 26, 1970.
The appointment was extended a second time on May 26, 1970 with identical conditions – “unless sooner terminated, and subject to the approval of the Board of Regents and to pertinent University regulations.”

The discussion originated from objections raised by a majority of the faculty and alumni, which had been previously communicated.
The matter had been referred to and studied by the Personnel Committee, constituted with Regents Tangco (Chairman), Pedrosa, and Soriano.

The Committee, after hearing testimonies and reviewing documents, recommended rejecting Dr. Blanco’s appointment.
For diplomatic reasons and to avoid embarrassment for both the appointee and the President, the Committee advised that the President negotiate with Dr. Blanco for withdrawal of her appointment.

During the July 9 meeting, after a series of clarifications and discussion regarding the Committee’s recommendation and the nature of a “gentlemen’s agreement,” the matter was brought to a roll-call vote.
The vote tally was as follows: 5 votes in favor of confirmation, 3 votes against, and 4 votes abstaining.
The Chairman ruled that the vote did not constitute a majority in favor of confirming the ad interim appointment.
Consequently, the Board suspended further action on the matter and declared that the ad interim appointment terminated as of July 9, 1970.
Later, the Board resolved, without recording the detailed vote or the intermediary deliberations, to return the case to its original status for further study, effectively nullifying any confirmation action.

Dr. Blanco filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Court of First Instance of Quezon City.
Initially, on December 3, 1970, the trial court ruled in her favor by declaring her the duly elected Dean with a three-year term.
The decision was subsequently amended on December 6, 1970, detailing:

Declaration of Dr. Blanco as the duly elected Dean for a three-year term (May 1, 1970 to April 30, 1973).
Voidance of the appointment of Oseas del Rosario as Officer-in-Charge.
Issuance of a permanent injunction against further action regarding another appointment for the Deanship.

The case eventually reached the Supreme Court on appeal by certiorari by the University President, the Board of Regents, and Oseas del Rosario.

Whether Dr. Consuelo S. Blanco was duly elected as Dean of the College of Education, considering her appointment was ad interim and explicitly subject to the Board’s subsequent confirmation.
Whether the ad interim appointment, which was conditioned upon confirmation by the Board of Regents, vested any title to the office of Dean once the Board failed to confirm her appointment at the July 9, 1970 meeting.

How to treat the votes of abstaining members in the roll-call vote (resulting in a 5-3-4 outcome):

Whether abstentions should be deemed as affirmative votes (acquiescence) or should be excluded from the vote count.
The implications of counting abstentions as either support or opposition in determining a “majority vote” for confirmation.

Whether the University President’s role of nominating, as opposed to electing, can substitute for the formal election of a Dean by the Board.
Whether the procedural steps taken by the Board of Regents in reconsidering and subsequently terminating the ad interim appointment were in conformity with the provisions of the Charter (Act No. 1870) and the Revised Code (Art. 78 and Art. 79).