TOPACIO NUENO v. ANGELES Jose Topacio Nueno, et al., petitioners Gerardo Angeles, et al.

, respondents FACTS Jose Topacio Nueno, Manuel De La Fuente, Eustaquio Balagtas and Carmen Planas were elected as members of the Municipal Board in the general election on Dec 1940, and qualified on Jan. 1941. Nueno and Planas subsequently resigned from their office to run for the House of Representatives on Nov. 1941, but they were not elected. The President of the Commonwealth then appointed Nueno to fill the vacancy he created because of his resignation, and Delia Dino to fill the vacancy created by Carmen Planas, since they were both from the same political party, The Young Philippines. On 1942, the Japanese Army invaded the country. The regular election as provided in the Election Code could not be held because the Japanese still occupied the country. The special election likewise could not be held after the restoration of the Commonwealth due to physical impossibility. Therefore the President of the Commonwealth appointed the six respondents to the Municipal Board. The four petitioners instituted an action quo warranto against six respondents, averring that their term of office of three years has not yet expired since they have not served for such period due to the Japanese occupation. They also assert their right to hold-over, or their right to continue in office until a successor has been elected. Also, that their appointments are in contravention of Sec. 16, Act 357 since the party of Dino has not been represented, and that such appointments were not submitted to the Commission on Appointments. Respondents contend that petitioners have no right to hold public office since their term expired on Dec 1943, and that term of office must be distinguished from tenure. Also that the appointments are valid under the emergency powers granted upon the President. ISSUES (1) Whether or not the petitioners have a right to hold-over of office (2) Whether or not the appointments of the President are valid RULING & RATIO (1) NO. The term of office must be distinguished from the tenure of the incumbent. The term means the time during which the officer may claim to hold the office as of right and fixes the interval after the several incumbents shall succeed one another. The tenure represents the term during which the incumbent actually holds office. The term of office is not affected by hold-over, and the tenure may be shorter than the term for reasons within or beyond the power of the incumbent. There is no principle, law or doctrine by which the term of an office may be extended by reason of war. Sec. 27 and 2177 of the Revised Administrative Code provided for the right to hold-over of a municipal and provincial officer: the incumbent shall hold-over until a successor shall be duly qualified. Such phrase was suppressed by a subsequent amendment (Act No. 2774), but was provided by a different section in the act, so it was still in effect. However, the foregoing provisions were all repealed by Sec. 184 of the Commonwealth Act No. 357. It provided: The officers elected shall assume office on the first day of January next following. (2) YES. Sec. 16 of the Commonwealth Act provides for the appointments to be done by the President in case of vacancy in an elective or municipal office. The vacancies enumerated thereof may be immediately filled in the manner provide, therefore there will be no interregnum during which the office may be temporarily without an incumbent. The act provides for appointment during temporary vacancy of office under subsection (a). Subsections (b), (c), (d) and (e) provides for appointment to fill in a vacancy. Subsection (a) cannot be applied in this case since no vacancy, temporary or otherwise, exists in this case.

Temporary absence is not the same as vacancy since in vacancy, there is no incumbent in public office. The petitioners were also not appointed under subsection (f), which provides for the appointed officer to serve for the unexpired term of office. Their terms, therefore, expired already on Dec. 1943, and the subsequent appointments of the respondents are valid under Sec. 16 of Commonwealth Act 357. DISPOSITIVE Action quo arrant is dismissed.