1

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-19823

January 12, 1963

RUPERTO ADVINCULA and BRAULIO AVELINO, petitioners,

vs.
HON. COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS and its Chairman
THE HON. PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINE SENATE;
HON. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE;
HON. JUDICIAL SUPERINTENDENT, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE;
HON. JUDGE CESARIO GOLEZ; THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS
respondents.
Jose Y. Torres and Alfonso Dadivas, Jr. for petitioners.
Office of the Solicitor General for respondents.
RESOLUTION
BARRERA, J.:
Petitioners pray, upon the grounds urged in their motion, for the reconsideration of the decision
rendered her in dismissing their petition for mandamus.

The issue in this case, as stated in our decision, is the interpretation of Section 21 of the Revised R
of the Commission on Appointments which in its pertinent part, reads:
SEC. 21. Resolution of the Commission on any appointment may be reconsidered on
by a member presented not more than one (1) day after their approval. . .

Petitioners contend that since their appointments were confirmed on April 27 (a Friday) and the m
for reconsideration was filed on April 30 (the following Monday), the confirmation had become fina
irrevocable, and its subsequent reconsideration was null and void.

On the other hand, we found that the Commission of Appointments itself has, in effect, ruled that
one-day provision in question refers to a working day, and Saturday not being one, the filing of the
motion made on the following Monday fulfills the requirement of the rule.

Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of facts be admitted and ap

by this Honorable Court, without prejudice to the parties adducing other evidence to prove their ca
not covered by this stipulation of facts. 1wph1.t

We upheld the interpretation given by the Commission itself of its own rules and refused to issue t
writ of mandamus prayed for. We now reaffirm our decision on the following grounds:.
(1) Section 9, Article VI, of the Constitution, providing:

The Congress shall convene in regular session once every year on the fourth M
of January, unless a different date is fixed by law. It may be called in special se
at any time, by the President to consider general legislation or only such subje
he may designate. No special session shall continue longer than thirty days an
regular session longer than one hundred days, exclusive of Sundays.

is not applicable to the Commission on Appointments. The constitutional provision

expressly limits the duration of the sessions of the Congress itself to thirty days, for s
sessions, and one hundred days for regular sessions, exclusive of Sundays. To hold th
provision equally applied to the Commission as contended by petitioners, would be to
declare that the sessions of this body are coetaneous with those of the Congress itse
this is not true because at least in the first session of the Congress when it will have t
organize itself first by electing the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the Ho
the Representatives, the Commission does not come into existence until it is constitu
within thirty days after the organization of both houses of Congress. 1 In other words,
Congress is already in session and the 100-day period is already running as to it, the
Commission is yet to be constituted. Consequently by necessity the number of days o
session of the Commission fall short of those of the Congress. Therefore, the sessions
two bodies are not coetaneous; therefore Section 9, Article VI of the Constitution is no
applicable to the Commission on Appointments.

(2) The only provision that governs the sessions of the Commission on Appointments
Section 13, Article VI of the Constitution which says:

... The Commission on Appointments shall meet only while the Congress is in
session, at the call of its Chairman or a majority of its Members, to discharge s
powers and functions as are herein conferred upon it.

Note that the sole mandatory injunction that is obligatory on the Commission is that
meet only while the Congress is in session. How often and how long it shall meet is le
entirely to the discretion of the Commission, as long as it is during the session of the
Congress, and it shall meet at the call of its chairman or a majority of its members.
Therefore, if the Commission itself decides that its working days should be from Mond
through Friday of the week, excluding Saturday and Sunday, it would be exercising its
lawful authority and would not be infringing any constitutional provision..

(3) The interpretation of its own rules adopted by the Commission in this case, is in
accordance with Republic Act 1880, which fixed the minimum requirements of legal h
of labor to 40 hours a week or 8 hours a day for five days per week, resulting in the c
from public transaction of all government offices on Saturdays, save those excepted

And the Commission on Appoinments is not one of those excepted by law.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, if not for the considerations stated in the last paragraph of the origin
opinion, which, for the purposes of this decision, may be laid aside, the motion for reconsideration
by the petitioners is hereby denied. So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador Concepcion, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalint
concur.
Reyes, J.B.L., J., took no part.