You are on page 1of 1

Case Digest: Guevara vs. Inocentes, G. R. No.

L-25577, 16 SCRA 379, March 15, 1966


FACTS:
The petitioner, Onofre Guevara was extended an ad interim appointment as Undersecretary of Labor by
the former Executive on November 18, 1965. Took his oath of office on November 25th same year. The
incumbent Executive issued Memorandum Circular No. 8 dated January 23, 1966 declaring that all
ad interim appointments made by the former Executive lapsed with the adjournment of the special
session of Congress at about midnight of January 22, 1966. The respondent, Raoul Inocentes was
extended an ad interim appointmentfor the same position by the incumbent Executive on January 23,
1966. Guevara filed before the court an instant petition for Quo Warranto seeking to be declared person
legally entitled to the said Officer of the Undersecretary of Labor under Art. VII Sec. 10 (4) of the 1935
Constitution. which states that:
The president shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress, but such
appointments shall be effective only until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the
next adjournment of Congress.
Since there was no Commission on Appointments organized during the special session which
commenced on January 17, 1966, the respondent contended that the petitioners
adinterim appointment as well as other made under similar conditions must have lapsed when the
Congress adjourned its last special session. But the petitioner stated that (1) the specific provision in the
Constitution which states that: until the next adjournment of Congress means adjournment of a
regular session of Congress and not by a special session and (2) only the Senate adjourned sine die at
midnight of January 22, 1966 and the House of the Representative merely suspended its session and to
be resumed on January 24, 1966 at 10:00 AM. The petitioner therefore concludes that Congress has
been in continuous session without interruptionsince January 17.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not, the petitioners contention regarding the next adjournment of Congress specifically
provides for regular session only.
2. Whether or not, the petitioners contention that Congress is still in continuous session?
HELD:
1. No. The phrase until the next adjournment of Congress does not make any reference to specific
session of Congress, whether regular or special. But a well-known Latin maxim is statutory construction
stated that when the law does not distinguish we should not distinguish. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos
distinguere debemus. It is safe to conclude that the authors of the 1935 Constitution used the word
adjournment had in mind either regular or special and not simply the regular one as the petitioner
contended.
2. No. The mere fact that the Senate adjourned sine die at midnight of January 22, 1966, the House of
the Representative is only a part of the Congress and not the Congress itself. So logically, the
adjournment of one of its Houses is considered adjournment of the Congress as a whole. And the
petitioners ad interim appointment must have been lapsed on January 22, 1966 upon adjournment of
the Senate.

You might also like