Aytona vs Castillo Case Digest -G.R. No. L-19313 January 19, 1962

Aytona vs Castillo Case Digest

Aytona vs Castillo Case Digest

Without prejudice to the subsequent promulgation of more extended opinion, the Court adopted today, the following resolutions: .

On December 29, 1961, then-President Carlos P. Garcia appointed Dominador R. Aytona as ad interim Governor of the Central Bank. On the same day, the latter took the corresponding oath.

On December 30, 1961, at noon, President-elect Diosdado Macapagal assumed office; and on December 31, 1961, he issued Administrative Order No. 2 recalling, withdrawing, and canceling all ad interim appointment made by President Garcia after December 13, 1961, (date when he, Macapagal, had been proclaimed elected by the Congress). On January 1, 1962, President Macapagal appointed Andres V. Castillo as ad interim Governor of the Central Bank, and the latter qualified immediately.

On January 2, 1962, both appointed exercised the powers of their office, although Castillo informed Aytona of his title thereto; and some unpleasantness developed in the premises of the Central Bank. However, the next day and thereafter, Aytona was definitely prevented from holding office in the Central Bank





Aytona was among the 350-midnight appointees of the incumbent President. Garcia Aytona as ad interim Governor of Central Bank.

Aytona qualified for the appointment on the same day. The next day, at noon, President-elect Macapagal assumed office. He issued an order which withdraws and canceled all the said midnight ad interim appointments by the predecessor.

On January 1, 1962 respondent Castillo was appointed by the President in place of Aytona. Insisting he validly holds the position of Governor, Aytona instituted this original action.


Whether the President can cancel ad interim appointments made by the past President

Ruling and Analysis

Given the circumstance, the answer is No. It is hard to believe that in signing 350 appointments in one night, Pres Garcia exercised such a “double case”. Therefore fall beyond the intent and spirit of ad interim appointment.

WHEREFORE, the Court exercising its judgment and discretion in the matter, hereby dismiss the action, without costs.

Aytona vs Castillo Case Digest

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts