TOPACIO NUENO v.
ANGELES
G.R. No. L-89
Sunshine Gianne T. Deiparine
Facts:
Jose Topacio Nueno, Manuel De La Fuente, Eustaquio Balagtas and Carmen
Planas were elected as members of the Municipal Board of the City of Manila in the
general election on December 1940 and qualified on January 1941. Nueno and Planas
subsequently resigned from their office to run for the House of Representatives on
November 1941, but they were not elected. Later, the President of the Commonwealth
appointed Nueno to fill the vacancy he created because of his resignation, and Delia
Diño to fill the vacancy created by Planas, since they were both from the same political
party, “The Young Philippines.”
In 1942, the Japanese Army invaded the country. Consequently, the regular
election as provided in the Election Code could not be held because the Japanese still
occupied the country. The special election likewise could not be held after the
restoration of the Commonwealth due to physical impossibility. Therefore, the President
of the Commonwealth appointed the six respondents to the Municipal Board.
Now, the four petitioners instituted an action quo warranto against the six
respondents, averring that their term of office of three years has not yet expired since
they have not served for such period due to the Japanese occupation. They also assert
their right to hold-over, or their right to continue in office until a successor has been
elected.
On the other hand, respondents contend that petitioners have no right to hold
public office since their term expired on December 1943, and that term of office must be
distinguished from tenure. Also, that the appointments are valid under the emergency
powers granted upon the President.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioners have a right to hold-over of office. NO
Ruling:
Petitioners have no right to hold-over of office. The term of office must be
distinguished from the tenure of the incumbent. The term means the time during which
the officer may claim to hold the office as of right and fixes the interval after the several
incumbents shall succeed one another while tenure represents the term during which
the incumbent actually holds office. The term of office is not affected by hold-over, and
the tenure may be shorter than the term for reasons within or beyond the power of the
incumbent. There is no principle, law or doctrine by which the term of an office may be
extended by reason of war.
Furthermore, the Revised Administrative Code and the city charter provided for
the right to hold-over of a municipal and provincial officer thus: “the incumbent shall
hold-over until a successor shall be duly qualified.” Such phrase was suppressed by a
subsequent amendment (Act No. 2774) but was provided by a different section in the
act, so it was still in effect. However, the foregoing provisions were all repealed by Sec.
184 of the Commonwealth Act No. 357. It provided: “The officers elected shall assume
office on the first day of January next following.”
This repeal of all provisions for holding over the provincial, city, and municipal
elective officers by CA 357, and the enactment of Sec. 16 thereof which provides for the
filling of all vacancies, temporary or otherwise, which might occur during and after the
expiration of a term of office, so as to avoid the necessity and even the occasion for
holding over, clearly show the manifest intention of Congress to suppress the hold over.
Sec. 16 of CA 357 provides for the appointments to be done by the President in
case of vacancy in an elective or municipal office. The vacancies enumerated thereof
may be immediately filled in the manner provided, therefore there will be no interval
during which the office may be temporarily without an incumbent.
Thus, the petitioners’ terms, expired already on Dec. 1943, and the subsequent
appointments of the respondents are valid under Sec. 16 of CA 357.
