Advincula vs Commision on appointments, 7scra 1 (1963)

Facts:

The petitioner was designated acting chairman of the board of directors under the
authority of that time president Carlos P.Garcia, who allegedly had extended him ad
interim appointment. On the other hand, respondent was appointed ad interim to the
same position by the late president Diosdado Macapagal. The petitioner then
challenged the legality of the appointment on the ground that the position in controversy
was not vacant since he has not yet resigned and his term has not yet expired.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent’s appointment was valid considering that the petitioner’s
term has not yet expired.

Held:

Yes, respondent’s appointment is valid

As pointed out in People vs Murray “It would be unfortunate if the title to office of one
upon whose official acts, public interest and private rights hinged. Did or could be made
depend upon the verbal declaration and statement of the having the power to make
appointment”.

In this case the petitioner argues that his oath and confirmation contains ad interim
appointment, the court ruled that it was incumbent upon this petitioner to clearly prove
under what kind of appointment he obtained title to the office, if any and when such
appointment was made. With the confusion surrounding the petitioner’s case, the court
has no alternative but to declare that the petitioner has failed to establish title of the
office he claim.