THIRD DIVISION July 1997, took his oath of office before Executive Judge Angel

Parazo of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 65) of Tarlac, Tarlac.

[G.R. No. 131429. August 4, 1999.] On 23 July 1997, Quiaoit assumed office and immediately
informed the President, as well as the Secretary of Justice and
OSCAR BERMUDEZ, ARTURO A. LLOBRERA and CLAUDIO the Civil Service Commission, of that assumption. Bermudez
L. DAYAON, Petitioners, v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY RUBEN refused to vacate the Office of Provincial Prosecutor claiming
TORRES, BUDGET SECRETARY SALVADOR ENRIQUEZ, JR., that the original copy of Quiaoit’s appointment had not yet been
JUSTICE SECRETARY TEOFISTO GUINGONA, JR., and released by the Secretary of Justice. 4 Quiaoit, nonetheless,
ATTY. CONRADO QUIAOIT, Respondents. performed the functions and duties of the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor by issuing office orders and memoranda,
DECISION signing resolutions on preliminary investigations, and filing
several informations before the courts. Quiaoit had since been
regularly receiving the salary, RATA and other emoluments of
VITUG, J.: the office.

On 17 September 1997, Bermudez and Quiaoit were summoned

The validity and legality of the appointment of respondent to Manila by Justice Secretary Guingona. The three met at the
Conrado Quiaoit to the post of Provincial Prosecutor of Tarlac by Department of Justice and, following the conference, Bermudez
then President Fidel V. Ramos is assailed in this petition for was ordered to wind up his cases until 15 October 1997 and to
review on certiorari on a pure question of law which prays for turn-over the contested office to Quiaoit the next day.
the reversal of the Order, 1 dated 20 October 1997, of the
Regional Trial Court (Branch 63) of Tarlac, Tarlac, dismissing In his First Indorsement, dated 22 September 1997, for the
the petition for prohibition and/or injunction and mandamus, Chief State prosecutor, Assistant Chief State Prosecutor Nilo
with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of injunction/temporary Mariano transmitted the original copy of Quiaoit’s appointment
restraining order, instituted by herein petitioners. chanrobles law library : red
to the Regional State Prosecutor Carlos de Leon, Region III, at
San Fernando, Pampanga. In turn, in his Second Indorsement,
The occurrence of a vacancy in the Office of the Provincial dated 02 October 1997, Regional State Prosecutor de Leon
Prosecutor of Tarlac impelled the main contestants in this case, forwarded to Quiaoit said original copy of his appointment. On
petitioner Oscar Bermudez and respondent Conrado Quiaoit, to the basis of the transmittal letter of Regional State Prosecutor
take contrasting views on the proper interpretation of a de Leon, Quiaoit, as directed, again so assumed office on 16
provision in the 1987 Revised Administrative Code. Bermudez, October 1997. On even date, Bermudez was detailed at the
the First Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Tarlac and Officer-In- Office of the Regional State Prosecutor, Region III, in San
Charge of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, was a Fernando, Pampanga.
recommendee 2 of then Justice Secretary Teofisto Guingona,
Jr., for the position of Provincial Prosecutor. Quiaoit, on the In the meantime, on 10 October 1997, bermudez together with
other hand, would appear to have had the support of then his co-petitioners Arturo Llobrera and Claudio Dayaon, the
Representative Jose Yap of the Second Legislative District of Second Assistant Provincial Prosecutor and the Fourth Assistant
Tarlac. 3 On 30 June 1997, Quiaoit emerged the victor when he Provincial Prosecutor of Tarlac, respectively, filed with the
was appointed by President Ramos to the coveted office. Quiaoit Regional Trial Court of Tarlac, a petition for prohibition and/or
received a certified xerox copy of his appointment and, on 21 injunction, and mandamus, with a prayer for the issuance of a
1
writ of injunction/temporary restraining order, against herein Insisting on the application of San Juan, petitioners call
respondents, challenging the appointment of Quiaoit primarily attention to the tenor of Executive Order No. 112 — 7
on the ground that the appointment lacks the recommendation
of the Secretary of Justice prescribed under the Revised "SECTION 1. All budget officers of provinces, cities and
Administrative Code of 1987. After hearing, the trial court municipalities shall be appointed henceforth by the Minister of
considered the petition submitted for resolution and, in due Budget of Management upon recommendation of the local chief
time, issued its now assailed order dismissing the petition. The executive concerned . . ." —
subsequent move by petitioners to have the order reconsidered
met with a denial. that, they claim, can be likened to the aforequoted provision of
the Revised Administrative Code of 1987. Respondents argue
Hence, the instant recourse. differently.

The core issue for consideration is whether or not the absence The legislative intent is, of course, primordial. There is no hard-
of a recommendation of the Secretary of Justice to the and-fast rule in ascertaining whether the language in a statute
President can be held fatal to the appointment of respondent should be considered mandatory or directory, and the
Conrado Quiaoit. This question would, in turn, pivot on the application of a ruling in one particular instance may not
proper understanding of the provision of the Revised necessarily be apt in another 8 for each must be determined on
Administrative Code of 1987 (Book IV, Title III, Chapter II, the basis of the specific law in issue and the peculiar
Section 9) to the effect that — circumstances attendant to it. More often than not, the
problem, in the final analysis, is firmed up and addressed on a
"All provincial and city prosecutors and their assistants shall be case-to-case basis. The nature, structure and aim of the law
appointed by the President upon the recommendation of the itself is often resorted to in looking at the legislative intent.
Secretary." cralaw virtua1aw library Generally, it is said that if no consequential rights or liabilities
depend on it and no injury can result from ignoring it, and that
Petitioners contend that an appointment of a provincial the purpose of the legislature can be accomplished in a manner
prosecutor mandatorily requires a prior recommendation of the other than that prescribed when substantially the same results
Secretary of Justice endorsing the intended appointment citing, can be obtained, then the statute should be regarded merely as
by analogy, the case of San Juan v. CSC 5 where the Court directory, rather than as mandatory, in character. 9
held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

An "appointment" to a public office is the unequivocal act of

". . . The DBM may appoint only from the list of qualified designating or selecting by one having the authority therefor of
recommendees nominated by the Governor. If none is qualified, an individual to discharge and perform the duties and functions
he must return the list of nominees to the Governor explaining of an office or trust. 10 The appointment is deemed complete
why no one meets the legal requirements and ask for new once the last act required of the appointing authority has been
recommendees who have the necessary eligibilities and complied with and its acceptance thereafter by the appointee in
qualifications. order to render it effective. 11 Appointment necessarily calls for
an exercise of discretion on the part of the appointing authority.
The Provincial Budget Officer (PBO) is expected to synchronize 12 In Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila v. Intermediate
his work with DBM." 6 (Emphasis supplied.) Appellate Court, 13 reiterated in Flores v. Drilon, 14 this Court
has held: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

2
 action of the departments, bureaus or offices even in the
"The power to appoint is, in essence, discretionary. The exercise of discretionary authority, and in so opting, he cannot
appointing power has the right of choice which he may exercise be said as having acted beyond the scope of his authority.
freely according to his judgment, deciding for himself who is
best qualified among those who have the necessary The doctrine in San Juan, relied upon by petitioners, is
qualifications and eligibilities. It is a prerogative of the tangential. While the tenor of the legal provision in Executive
appointing power . . ." 15 Order No. 112 has some similarity with the provision in the
1987 Administrative Code in question, it is to be pointed out,
Indeed, it may rightly be said that the right of choice is the however, that San Juan, 24 in construing the law, has
heart of the power to appoint. 16 In the exercise of the power distinctively given stress to the constitutional mandate on local
of appointment, discretion is an integral part thereof. autonomy; thus: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

When the Constitution 17 or the law 18 clothes the President "The issue before the Court is not limited to the validity of the
with the power to appoint a subordinate officer, such appointment of one Provincial Budget Officer. The tug of war
conferment must be understood as necessarily carrying with it between the Secretary of Budget and Management and the
an ample discretion of whom to appoint. It should be here Governor of the premier province of Rizal over a seemingly
pertinent to state that the President is the head of government innocuous position involves the application of a most important
whose authority includes the power of control over all constitutional policy and principle, that of local autonomy. We
"executive departments, bureaus and offices." Control means have to obey the clear mandate on local autonomy. Where a
the authority of an empowered officer to alter or modify, or law is capable of two interpretations, one in favor of centralized
even nullify or set aside, what a subordinate officer has done in power in Malacañang and the other beneficial to local
the performance of his duties, as well as to substitute the autonomy, the scales must be weighed in favor of autonomy.
judgment of the latter, 19 as and when the former deems it to
be appropriate. Expressed in another way, the President has the x           x          x
power to assume directly the functions of an executive
department, bureau and office. 20 It can accordingly be inferred
therefrom that the President can interfere in the exercise of "When the Civil Service Commission interpreted the
discretion of officials under him or altogether ignore their recommending power of the Provincial Governor as purely
recommendations. 21 directory, it went against the letter and spirit of the
constitutional provisions on local autonomy. If the DBM
It is the considered view of the Court, given the above Secretary jealously hoards the entirety of budgetary powers and
disquisition, that the phrase "upon recommendation of the ignores the right of local governments to develop self-reliance
Secretary," found in Section 9, Chapter II, Title III, Book IV of and resoluteness in the handling of their own funds, the goal of
the Revised Administrative Code, should be interpreted, as it is meaningful local autonomy is frustrated and set back."25 cralaw:red

normally so understood, to be a mere advise, exhortation or

indorsement, which is essentially persuasive in character and The Court there has explained that the President merely
not binding or obligatory upon the party to whom it is made. 22 exercises general supervision over local government units and
The recommendation is here nothing really more than advisory local officials; 26 hence, in the appointment of a Provincial
in nature. 23 The President, being the head of the Executive Budget Officer, the executive department, through the
Department, could very well disregard or do away with the Secretary of Budget and Management, indeed had to share the
3
questioned power with the local government. chanrobles.com : virtual law library

In the instant case, the recommendation of the Secretary of

Justice and the appointment of the President are acts of the
Executive Department itself, and there is no sharing of power to
speak of, the latter being deemed for all intents and purposes
as being merely an extension of the personality of the
President.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.