Bermudez vs. Executive Secretary G.R. No. 131429

Bermudez vs. Executive Secretary G.R. No. 131429

Case Digest

By: G-one T. Paisones

Facts:

Bermudez, the First Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Tarlac and Officer-In-Charge of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, was a recommendee of then Justice Secretary Teofisto Guingona, Jr., for the position of Provincial Prosecutor. Quiaoit, on the other hand, would appear to have had the support of then Representative Jose Yap.  On 30 June 1997, Quiaoit was appointed by President Ramos to the coveted office. Quiaoit received a certified xerox copy of his appointment and, on 21 July 1997, took his oath of office before Executive Judge Angel Parazo of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 65) of Tarlac, Tarlac. On 23 July 1997, Quiaoit assumed office and immediately informed the President, as well as the Secretary of Justice and the Civil Service Commission, of that assumption. Bermudez refused to vacate the Office of Provincial Prosecutor claiming that the original copy of Quiaoits appointment had not yet been released by the Secretary of Justice.

On 17 September 1997, Bermudez and Quiaoit were summoned to Manila by Justice Secretary Guingona. The three met at the Department of Justice and, following the conference, Bermudez was ordered to wind up his cases until 15 October 1997 and to turn-over the contested office to Quiaoit the next day.

On the basis of the transmittal letter of Regional State Prosecutor de Leon, Quiaoit, as directed, again so assumed office on 16 October 1997. On even date, Bermudez was detailed at the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor, Region III, in San Fernando, Pampanga.

Bermudez challenged the appointment of Quiaoit primarily on the ground that the appointment lacks the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice prescribed under the Revised Administrative Code of 1987. 

Issue:

Whether or not the absence of a recommendation of the Secretary of Justice to the President can be held fatal to the appointment of respondent Conrado Quiaoit

Held:

No

Ratio:

The legislative intent is, of course, primordial. There is no hard-and-fast rule in ascertaining whether the language in a statute should be considered mandatory or directory, and the application of a ruling in one particular instance may not necessarily be apt in another for each must be determined on the basis of the specific law in issue and the peculiar circumstances attendant to it. More often than not, the problem, in the final analysis, is firmed up and addressed on a case-to-case basis. The nature, structure and aim of the law itself is often resorted to in looking at the legislative intent. Generally, it is said that if no consequential rights or liabilities depend on it and no injury can result from ignoring it, and that the purpose of the legislature can be accomplished in a manner other than that prescribed when substantially the same results can be obtained, then the statute should be regarded merely as directory, rather than as mandatory, in character.

The power to appoint is, in essence, discretionary. The appointing power has the right of choice which he may exercise freely according to his judgment, deciding for himself who is best qualified among those who have the necessary qualifications and eligibilities. It is a prerogative of the appointing power

Supreme Court, given the above disquisition, that the phrase upon recommendation of the Secretary, found in Section 9, Chapter II, Title III, Book IV, of the RAC, should be interpreted, as it is normally so understood, to be a mere advise, exhortation or endorsement, which is essentially persuasive in character and not binding or obligatory upon the party to whom it is made.