General vs Urro

General vs Urro GR. 191560, March 29, 2011 FACTS: PGMA appointed the petitioner as acting NAPOLCOM Commissioner on July 2008 in place of oces! the former commissioner! commissioner! "ho died# On the same date! PGMA appointed $scueta as acting NAPOLCOM Commissioner and designated him as NAPOLCOM %ice Chairman# Later! PGMA appointed respondent &rro in place of the petitioner# 'he also appointed Constancia de Gu(man in place of Celia Leones! and $scuetas as permanent NAPOLCOM Commissioners# Commissioners# )hen respondent reccei*ed their congratulatory letter for their appointment+March 20,0-! petitioners then .led the present /uo "arranto petition /uestioning the *alidity of the respondents respondents appointments mainly on the ground ground that it *iolates the constitutional prohiition against midnight appointments# On July 10! 20,0! Pres# enigno '# A/uino 333! issued $#O# No# 2 4ecalling! )ithdra"ing! and e*o5ing Appointments 3ssued y the Pre*ious Administration in %iolation of the Constitutional an on Midnight Appointments#4  6he petitioner argues that that the appointment appointment issued to to him "as a regular regular appointment and he cannot e remo*ed from o7ce ecept for cause# 9e further claims that oces "as supposed to ser*e a full term of si years counted from the date of her appointment# 'ince she failed to .nish her si:year term! the petitioner claims that he is entitled to ser*e this unepired portion#  6he parties also also d"elt on the issue of constitutionality constitutionality of the respondents respondents appointments in light of $#O# No# 2#

ISSUE: !" #he $%o arran#o &s 'ro'er (E)*: "o. The 'e#&#&on &s +en&e+. $%o arran#o &s a re-e+ #o #r +&s'%#es &#h res'ec# #o #he #&#le #o a '%/l&c oce 'ince the petitioner merely holds an acting appointment +epired +epired acting appointment-! he clearly does not ha*e a cause of action to maintain the present petition# 6he essence of an acting appointment is its temporariness and its conse/uent re*ocaility at any time y the appointing authority# 6he petitioner in a /uo "arranto proceeding "ho see5s reinstatement to an o7ce! on the ground of usurpation or illegal depri*ation! must pro*e his clear right to the o7ce for his suit to succeed; other"ise! his petition must fail#  6hus! the petitioner petitioner must .rst .rst clearly estalish estalish his o"n o"n right to the the disputed o7ce o7ce as a condition precedent precedent to the consideration of the unconstitutionality of the respondents appointments# 6he petitioners failure in this regard renders a ruling on

the constitutional issues raised completely unnecessary# Neither do "e need to pass upon the *alidity of the respondents appointment# 6hese latter issues can e determined more appropriately in a proper case#