October 14, 1949
However, Lacson filed his objection and asked that Romero’s appearance as
ANTONIO LACSON, petitioner, vs.
HONORIO ROMERO, ET AL., respondents.
MONTEMAYOR, J.
NATURE: Quo Warranto proceeding
SUMMARY: Petitioner Lacson was appointed by the President of the Phils., as provincial fiscal
of Negros Oriental on July 25, 1946. but on May 17, 1949, Lacson was nominated for the same
position, this time, as provincial fiscal of Tarlac. On the same date, respondent Romero was
appointed as provincial fiscal of Negros Oriental (previous post of Lacson). However, Lacson
neither accepted nor assumed the office in Tarlac, hence the current dispute as to the legitimacy
and effectivity of Lacson’s appointment as provincial fiscal of Tarlac, as well as the effectivity of
Romero’s appointment as provincial fiscal of Negros Oriental. The Court ruled that Lacson
should still be the provincial fiscal of Negros Oriental and that Romero’s appointment to the said
post is not effective. Mainly because Lacson did not accept his appointment to Tarlac, and
considering that under the Constitution a provincial fiscal may not be arbitrarily removed from his
office except for causes provided by law.
DOCTRINE/S:
 The appointment to a governmental post like that of provincial fiscal is not only made
by the President, with the concurrent confirmation of the Commission on
Appointments, but is actually completed by the acceptance of the nominee, in order
for such appointment to be valid and effective. The first two steps of nomination and
confirmation done by the President and Commission, respectively only constitutes a
mere offer yet to be accepted by the nominee him/herself.
 As stated under Article XII, Section 4 of the Constitution, no officer or employee in the
civil service shall be removed or suspended except for causes provided by law.
FACTS:
 On July 25,1946, Lacson was appointed by the President of the Phils., as the
provincial fiscal of Negros Oriental, the same was confirmed by the Commission on
Appointments on August 6, 1946, and Lacson took his oath of office on August 10,
1946 and performed his duties.
 On May 17, 1949, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Justice, Lacson was now
being appointed for the same office, but this time in the province of Tarlac. On the
same date, Romero was appointed as the provincial fiscal of Negros Oriental. Both
nominations were confirmed by the Commission on Appointments on May 19, 1949.
 Lacson neither accepted his nomination in Tarlac nor assumed his duties.
 Romero, on the other hand, took his oath and notified the Solicitor General of the fact,
and proceeded to perform his duties.
 Upon Romero’s arrival in Negros Oriental, he notified Lacson of his intention to take
over the office, but Lacson objected.
 On June 24, 1949, Romero appeared in criminal case no. 4433 (as provincial fiscal).
provincial fiscal be stricken from the record. However, the presiding judge denied
Lacson’s petition and recognized Romero as the provincial fiscal of Negros Oriental.
 On June 27, 1949, Romero again appeared in Special Proceedings No. 630 as
provincial fiscal, Lacson again filed his objection, but was overruled.
 When Lacson requested the payment of his salary for the period from June 16 to June
1949 as the provincial fiscal of Negros Oriental, the Provincial Auditor (Angel Paguia)
and Provincial Treasurer (L.J. Alfabeto) turned down his claim and instead paid
respondent Romero the salary for the position of provincial fiscal from June 16, 1949
up to the present.
 The aforesaid events now has become the basis for this quo warranto proceedings
aimed at establishing the petitioner Lacson’s right to the post of provincial fiscal of
Negros Oriental and to hold the respondent Romero guilty of usurpation, unlawful
holding and exercise of the functions and duties of provincial fiscal of Negros Oriental,
which will result to his ouster from the office.
ISSUE:
1. W/N Lacson’s subsequent appointment as provincial fiscal of Tarlac is valid and
efffective. NO (relevant to topic)
2. W/N Lacson’s effective removal from his office in Negros Oriental is valid. NO
(relevant to topic)
RATIO:
1. The appointment to a government post like that of provincial fiscal to be complete
involves several steps. First, comes the nomination by the President. Then to make
that nomination valid and permanent, the Commission on Appointments of the
Legislature has to confirm said nomination. The last step is the acceptance thereof by
the appointee by his assumption of office. The first two steps, nomination and
confirmation, constitute a mere offer of a post. They are acts of the Executive and
Legislative departments of the Government. But the last necessary step to make the
appointment complete and effective rests solely with the appointee himself. He may or
he may not accept the appointment or nomination. As held in the case of Borromeo
vs. Mariano, 41 Phil., 327, "there is no Power in this country which can compel a man
to accept an office." Consequently, since Lacson has declined to accept his
appointment as provincial fiscal of Tarlac and no one can compel him to do so, then
he continues as provincial fiscal of Negros Oriental and no vacancy in said office was
created, unless Lacson had been lawfully removed as Such fiscal of Negros Oriental.
2. The next question arises as to whether the President even with the concurrence or
consent of the Commission on Appointments may remove a provincial fiscal without
cause. The Constitution itself denies said right. Article XII, section 4 of said instrument
provides that "no officer or employee in the civil service shall be removed or
suspended except for cause as provided by law.”
DISPOSITIVE: The Court rules in favor of Petitioner Lacson’s retention of his office as provincial
fiscal of Negros Oriental and the respondent Romero, not being entitled to the said post, is
ordered to surrender to the petitioner all the records or papers appertaining to said office that
may have come into his possession. The respondent provincial auditor and provincial treasurer,
are hereby ordered to pay to the herein petitioner his salary from June 16, 1949, and as long as
said petitioner continues to be the legal incumbent to the office in question.