You are on page 1of 1

VALENCIA VS PERALTA

8 SCRA 692 Law on Public Officers Ad Interim Appointment vs Appointment in


Acting Capacity

In October 1961, Valencia was designated as acting chairman of the board of


directors of the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NAWASA) by then
President Carlos Garcia. He took his oath of office and in April 1962, the Commission
on Appointments (COA) confirmed Valencias appointment. His tenure was set to
expire in July 1967. But in June 1962, when President Diosdado Macapagal took
power, he appointed Macario Peralta, Jr. as chairman of the board of NAWASA.
Valencia now assails the appointment of Peralta on the ground that the office was
not vacant and he was the incumbent chairman when Peralta was appointed.
Valencia further contends that his appointment (by Garcia) is permanent because it
was an ad interim appointment; that the oath he took was even for an ad interim
appointment.

ISSUE: Whether or not the appointment of Peralta is valid.

HELD: Yes. Valencias appointment is merely temporary because he was designated


as acting chairman only. This designation, being of revocable and temporary
character, could not ripen into a permanent appointment, even if it was
subsequently confirmed by the COA, because confirmation presupposes a valid
nomination or recess appointment, of which there is no trace. His claim that his
appointment is ad interim lacks proof. He did not show proof but he merely claimed
that his appointment was ad interim. On the other hand, it was shown that
apparently, there was found, in the Malacanang Palace, a draft purportedly for the
ad interim appointment of Valencia however, said draft was never released hence
Valencia was never appointed ad interim. Also, the oath he took is not valid because
it did not correspond to his temporary appointment.