You are on page 1of 1

1 AYTONA vs. CASTILLO et al.

G.R. No. L-19313 FACTS: On December 29, 1961 outgoing president Caslos P. Garcia appointed Dominador R. Aytona as ad interim Governor of the Central Bank. On the same day, the latter took his oath of office. On December 30, 1962 at noon, President-elect Diosdado Macapagal assumed office and issued on December 31, 1961 Administrative Order No. 2 recalling, withdrawing and cancelling all ad interim appointments made by President Garcia after December 13, 1961. On January 1, 1962, President Macapagal appointed Andres V. Castillo as ad interim Governor of the Central Bank and qualified immediately. Aytona was prevented from holding office on January 3, 1961 by Castillo, hence, the former filed a petition for quo warranto, challenging Castillos right to hold office of Central Bank Governor and asserting that he was validly appointed and qualified for the said post and that the appointment of Castillo was void as the position was already occupied by him. ISSUE: Did President Macapagal have the power to order cancellation of appointments made by the previous president, even after appointees had already qualified? RULING: Yes, President Macapagal had the power to issue the order of cancellation, manifested by A.O. No. 2. The court asserts that President Garcias rush to fill-in 350 appointments in one night and the planned induction of most of them a few hours before the inauguration of the new president may be regarded as abuse of presidential prerogatives. The court further asserts that President Garcias administration was no more than a care-taker administration who was duty bound to prepare for the orderly transfer of authority and he should do no acts which he ought to know, would embarrass or obstruct the policies of his successor. The filling up of vacancies in important positions, if few, and so spaced to afford some assurance of deliberate action and careful consideration of the need for the appointment and the appointees qualifications may undoubtedly be permitted. But in the case at bar, 350 appointments in one night, characterized by rush conditional appointments, hurried maneuvers, and other events detracting from good faith, morality and propriety, puts into question if fairness, justice and righteousness were taken into account. Petition is DISMISSED.