Quimsing vs.

Tajanglangit
Facts:
-

On December 20, 1961, Pres. Garcia extended Acting Iloilo City Chief of Police Godofredo
Quimsing an ad interim appointment to the post of Chief of Police of Iloilo City. Quimsing took
his oath on December 28, 1961.
The Commission on Appointments confirmed Quimsings appointment in their session held on
May 16, 1962, but on the following day, Senator Puyat moved for the reconsideration of the
appointments previously confirmed and that the motion for reconsideration be laid on the table.
He also moved for the adjournment of the session of the Commission, to which nobody objected.
On June 11, 1962, Pres. Macapagal designated Eduardo Tajanglangit as Acting Chief of Police for
Iloilo City. He took his oath on June 13, 1962.
On July 12, 1962, Quimsing filed the present petition. Tajanglangit responded that Quimsings ad
interim appointment was nullified by Pres. Macapagals AO No. 2 (see Aytona vs. Castillo).

Issue:
-

WON Quimsings ad interim appointment on Dec. 20, 1961 and the Commission on
Appointments confirmation thereof was valid and effective

Held:
-

Quimsings appointment was valid and effective, and Tajanglangits appointment

was null and void as there was no vacancy in the position.
o Referring to the decision in Aytona vs. Castillo, the Court ruled that not all ad interim
appointments made that fall under the purview of AO No. 2 came under the category of
the midnight appointments, the validity of which were doubted. The appointments would
be ruled on their individual basis, character, and merit.
The Supreme Court did not find Quimsings appointment on Dec. 20 part of the
scramble of appointments Pres. Garcia made on Dec. 29 & 30 that Pres.
Macapagals AO No. 2 intended to nullify. The Court ruled that unlike those
appointments, Garcia had the time to consider the merits and qualifications of
Quimsings appointment.
o As for the issue of the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, it was noted
that Sen. Puyats motion for reconsideration was coupled with a prayer that the motion be
laid on the table, which is tantamount to no motion was filed at all.
The Commission confirmed the appointment and notice thereof was delivered to
Malacanang on July 19, 1962. This action supports the conclusion that the laying
of the motion for reconsideration on the table had no effect on the validity of the
confirmation, nor is it tantamount to disapproval of the confirmation. It was
recognition of the appointments confirmation.