Case Summary (G.R. No. L-2152)
Grounds of Petition
Petitioners argued that Section 13 made the twelve-name list mandatory, precluding presidential appointment of any individual not on that list. They sought ouster of Cruz and recognition of their own entitlement to appointment.
Respondent’s Arguments
Dr. Cruz maintained that the recommended list was merely advisory, not binding; that some petitioners lacked statutory qualifications under Section 14; and that Section 13’s mandatory interpretation would unconstitutionally restrict the President’s appointment power.
Division of the Court
Three judicial blocs formed:
- Those viewing Section 13 as mandatory but unconstitutional in its restriction of executive power.
- Those treating Section 13 as directory, rendering Cruz’s appointment valid.
- Those finding renewal under Section 15 independent of the Section 13 list, thus affirming the appointment.
Majority Rationale on List Requirement
The largest group deemed it unnecessary to resolve Section 13’s mandatory versus directory character, concluding that Section 15’s reappointment provision authorized naming any qualified incumbent without list constraint. They also noted no evidence of Cruz’s incompetence or misconduct.
Alternative Rationale under Section 15
Section 15 allows reappointment for one additional year without reference to the nominee list. Cruz’s term, originally set to expire in August 1960, was lawfully extended to fulfill the one-year reappointment right.
Conclusion on Validity of Appointment
All members concurred that Dr. Cruz holds a valid title: whether by directory construction of Section 13, by the reappointment exception in Section 15, or by preserving constitutional appointment autonomy under the 1935 Constitution.
Standing and Cause of Action
Under Rule 68, Section 6 of the Rules of Court, only a person claimin
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-2152)
Facts
- Petitioners are seven medical practitioners whose names appeared on a list of twelve nominees for appointment to the Board of Medical Examiners, as submitted by the Executive Council of the Philippine Medical Association pursuant to Section 13, Republic Act No. 2382.
- Respondent Dr. Pedro M. Cruz, though not on that list, was appointed by the President as one of the six members of the Board.
- Petitioners allege that respondent’s appointment is illegal and pray for a quo warranto remedy to declare their own qualifications and to oust respondent.
- They also sought an ex parte preliminary injunction to bar respondent from participating in the December 14, 1959 licensure examinations.
- The petitioners are Drs. Jose Cuyegkeng, Pedro N. Mayuga, Benjamin Roa, Timoteo Alday, Dominador Jacinto, Alejandro Gaerlan, and Rosita Rivera-Ramirez.
- The Executive Council of the Philippine Medical Association intervened, joining the petitioners’ cause of action.
Procedural History
- November 25, 1959: Petition for quo warranto filed; amended December 1, 1959.
- December 3, 1959: This Court denied the petitioners’ ex parte application for a writ of preliminary injunction.
- Intervention by the Executive Council was allowed; intervenors adopted petitioners’ prayers.
- The case was submitted for decision on the merits.
Relevant Statutory Provisions
- Section 13, RA 2382 (“The Medical Act of 1959”):
- Board members “to be appointed by the President … from a confidential list of not more than twelve names approved and submitted by the Executive Council …”
- President to fill vacancies “from the list of names submitted …”
- Section 14, RA 2382:
- Qualifications of members: natural-born Filipino; registered physician; ten years in practice; good moral character; recognized standing; not a faculty member of any medical school nor interested in any college of medicine.
- Limitations on alma mater and status