REVIEWER: Rule 66 Quo Warranto

RULE 66

QUO WARRANTO 

 1.     Actions by Government against individuals

What action by Government – An action for the usurpation of a public office, position or franchise.

How commenced and in whose name –

Verified petition in the name of the Republic.

Against whom –  

(a)   Person who usurps, intrudes, unlawfully holds or exercises public office, position or franchise;

(b)   Public officer who does or suffers act which by provision of law, constitutes ground for forfeiture of office;

(c)   Association which acts as corporation within the Philippines without being legally incorporated and without lawful authority to act.

 

1.1 Nature of QW Proceedings as a legal remedy

A quo warranto proceeding is the proper legal remedy to determine the right or title to the contested public office and to oust the holder from its enjoyment. The action may be brought by the solicitor general or a public prosecutor or any person claiming to be entitled to the public office or position usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another. The action shall be brought against the person who allegedly usurped, intruded into or is unlawfully holding or exercising such office.

In order for a quo warranto proceeding to be successful, the person suing must show that he or she has a clear right to the contested office or to use or exercise the functions of the office allegedly usurped or unlawfully held by the respondent. In this case, petitioners present no sufficient proof of a clear and indubitable franchise to the office of the Senate minority leader. (Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona)

1.2 Distinction between QW and Mandamus (Lota v. CA)

QW	Mandamus
Remedy to try the right to an office or franchise and to oust holder from its enjoyment	Lies to enforce clear legal duties, not to try disputed titles

 

QW	Electoral Protest
Refers to questions of disloyalty to the State, or of ineligibility of  the winning candidate. Objective is to unseat the ineligible person, but not to install the petitioner in his place.	Proposes to oust the winning candidate from office. Strictly a contest between the defeated and the winning candidates based on the grounds of electoral frauds and irregularities to determine who between them obtained the majority of the legal votes and entitled to hold office.
Any voter may initiate the action which is not a contest where the parties strive for supremacy because the petitioner will not be seated even if respondent may be unseated.	It can only be filed by a candidate who has duly filed a COC and voted for in the preceeding elections.

1.3 Distinction between QW and Electoral Protest (Lokin v. COMELEC)

1.4 QW under Substantive law (Omnibus

Election Code)

-   Refers to election contest relating to qualifications of an elective official on ground of ineligibility or disloyalty to the Republic. 

-    Issue is whether the respondent possesses all the qualification and none of disq prescribed by law

 

1.     Effect of filing petition to annul or suspend the proclamation – The filing with Commission of a petition annul/suspend proclamation of any candidate shall suspend running of period within which to file an election protest or QW proceedings.

 

2.     Petition for Quo Warranto

Any voter contesting the election of any... on ground of ineligibility or of disloyalty to the RP shall file a sworn petition for quo warranto... Within ten days after the proclamation of the results of the election.

 

Member of BP, Regional, Provincial or City Officer	With the Commission
Municipal or barangay officer	With the RTC/MeTC or MTC, respectively

 

3.     Actual or compensatory damages – may be granted in all election contests or in QW proceedings in accordance with law.

 

1.5 QW against persons usurping an officer in a private corporation

-     Rule 66 not applicable to QW cases against persons usurping an office in a private corporation Calleja v. Panday: 

a.     Prior to the enactment of RA 8799, Court declared that Rule 66, Section 1 is limited to actions of QW against persons who usurp a public office, position or franchise; public officers who forfeit their office and associations which act as corporations without being legally incorporated, while actions for QW against corporations, or against persons who usurp an office in a corporation fall under the jurisdiction of SEC.

b.     However, RA 8799passed and actions

of QW against persons who usurp an

office in a corporation, formerly cognizable by SEC under PD 902-A have been transferred to courts of

general jurisdiction. BUT THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT RULE

66 DOES NOT APPLY TO QW CASES WHO USURP AN OFFICE IN A PRIVATE CORPORATION.

c.     Section 1(a) of Rule 66 no longer

contains phrase “or an office in a corporation created by authority of law” found in old rules. Clearly, the present Rule only applies to actions of QW against persons who usurp ...incorporated despite the passage of RA 8799.

d.     Interim Rules of Procedure Governing

Intra-Corporate Controversies under RA 8799 applies to petition for QW filed by respondents.

 

2.     When SolGen or Public Prosec MUST commence action

When commenced

            The SG or PP must commence action: a. When directed by the President

b. Upon complaint or otherwise he has good reason to believe that any case specified in the preceding section can be established by proof.

 

3.     When SG or PP MAY commence action

 

When to commence with the permission of court

a. At the request and upon relation of another person, SG or PP may, within the permission of Court in which the action is commenced, bring such an action.

Requirement before commencing action – officer bringing it may first require an indemnity for the expenses and costs of the action in an amount approved by and to be deposited in the court by person at whose request and upon whose relation the same is brought.

Relator – (female relatrix)  legal term meaning a private person at whose relation or on whose behalf an application for QW or M is filed. The Relator appears as one beneficially interested, but action is maintained on his behalf. 

Relator furnishes the knowledge or facts on which an information or proceeding in QW is based. Such a proceeding is usually in the name of the State, of the relator.

3.1 OSG’s discretion to suspend/turn down filing of an action for QW

Topacio v. Sandiganbayan - In the exercise of sound discretion, the Solicitor General may suspend or turn down the institution of an action for quo warranto where there are just and valid reasons. Thus, in Gonzales v. Chavez, the Court ruled:

 

Like the Attorney-General of the United States who has absolute discretion in choosing whether to prosecute or not to prosecute or to abandon a prosecution already started, our own Solicitor General may even dismiss, abandon, discontinue or compromise suits either with or without stipulation with the other party. Abandonment of a case, however, does not mean that the Solicitor General may just drop it without any legal and valid reasons, for the discretion given him is not unlimited. Its exercise must be, not only within the parameters get by law but with the best interest of the State as the ultimate goal. Upon receipt of a case certified to him, the Solicitor General exercises his discretion in the management of the case. He may start the prosecution of the case by filing the appropriate action in court or he may opt not to file the case at all. He may do everything within his legal authority but always conformably with the national interest and the policy of the government on the matter at hand.  It appears that after studying the case, the Solicitor General saw the idiocy of re-litigating the same issue of Ongs citizenship in the quo warranto case simultaneously with the RTC case, not to mention the consequent risk of forum-shopping. In any event, the OSG did not totally write finis to the issue as it merely advised petitioner to await the outcome of the RTC case.

 

4. When hearing  had on application for permission to commence action

 

When notice given to respondent – 

Upon application for permission to commence such action in accordance with the next preceding section, Court shall direct that notice be given to the respondent so that he may be heard in opposition thereto.

 

Effect if permission is granted – 

The Court shall issue an order to that effect, copies shall be served on all interested parties, and the petition shall be filed within the period ordered by the Court. 

 

 

5.     When an individual may commence such an action

When individual may commence a QW action in his own name

      A person claiming to be entitled to a public office/position usurped/unlawfully held or exercised by another may bring an action therefor in his own name.

 

5.1 Action commenced by OSG or fiscal or by an individual in his own name The parties who can commence QW

proceedings were clearly explained in 

 

Feliciano v. Villasin: It is well-established that Quo Warranto proceedings determine the right of a person to the use or exercise of a franchise or an office and to oust the holder from its enjoyment, if the latter’s claim is not wellfounded, or if he has forfeited his right to enjoy the privilege. According to the Rules of Procedure:

 

The action may be commenced for the Government by the Solicitor General or the fiscal against a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, position or franchise; a public officer whose acts constitute a ground for the forfeiture of his office; or against an association which acts as a corporation without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority to so act.

  

The action may also be instituted by an individual in his own name who claims to be entitled to the public office or position usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another.

 

5.2 Private person suing must show a clear right to the contested office

 

Topacio v. Ong – Private persons suing must show a clear right to the contested office and not even a mere preferential right to be appointed thereto.

 

While denominated as a petition for certiorari and prohibition, the petition partakes of the nature of a quo warranto proceeding with respect to Ong, for it effectively seeks to declare null and void his appointment as an Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan for being unconstitutional. While the petition professes to be one for certiorari and prohibition, petitioner even adverts to a quo warranto aspect of the petition.

 

Being a collateral attack on a public officers title, the present petition for certiorari and prohibition must be dismissed.

 

The title to a public office may not be contested except directly, by quo warranto proceedings; and it cannot be assailed collaterally, even through mandamus or a motion to annul or set aside order. The Court ruled that prohibition does not lie to inquire into the validity of the appointment of a public officer.

 

Even if the Court treats the case as one for quo warranto, the petition is, just the same, dismissible.

 

A quo warranto proceeding is the proper legal remedy to determine the right or title to the contested public office and to oust the holder from its enjoyment. It is brought by SG or PP or by any person claiming to be entitled to the public office or position usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another.

 

For a quo warranto petition to be successful, the private person suing must show a clear right to the contested office. In fact, not even a mere preferential right to be appointed thereto can lend a modicum of legal ground to proceed with the action.

 

In the present case, petitioner presented no sufficient proof of a clear and indubitable franchise to the office of an Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan. He in fact concedes that he was never entitled to assume the office of an Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan.

 

5.3 Effect of absence of the element showing petitioner entitled to the office Nothing is better settled than that a petitioner, in QW proceeding to try title to a public office, must be able to show that he is entitled to said office. No individual can bring a civil action relating to usurpation of a public office without averring that he has a right to the same; and at any stage of the proceedings, if it be shown that such individual has no right, the action may be dismissed because there is no legal ground upon which it may proceed when fundamental basis of such action is destroyed.

 

5.4 Effect when plaintiff is not entitled to public office

A QW can be dismissed at any stage without averment or evidence showing plaintiff entitled to disputed public office.

 

Feliciano v. Villasin - In the instance in which the Petition for QW is filed by an individual in his own name, he must be able to prove that he is entitled to the controverted public office, position, or franchise; otherwise, the holder of the same has a right to the undisturbed possession thereof. In actions for QW to determine title to a public office, the complaint, to be sufficient in form, must show that the plaintiff is entitled to the office.

 

 Court ruled that the person instituting QW proceedings on his own behalf, under Section 5, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, must aver and be able to show that he is entitled to the office in dispute. Without such averment or evidence of such right, the action may be dismissed at any stage. 

 

The Court emphasizes that an action for QW may be dismissed at any stage when it becomes apparent that the plaintiff is not entitled to the disputed public office, position or franchise. Hence, RTC is not compelled to still proceed with the trial when it is already apparent on the face of the Petition for QW that it is insufficient. The RTC may already dismiss said petition at this point.

 

6.     Parties and contents of petition against usurpation

Parties 

1.     Person who claim to be ent to pub office, position or franchise;

2.     All persons who ...

              Contents of petition

                   When action is against a person for usurping

PO,P,F, the petition shall set forth:

a.     Name of person claim to be entitled thereto;

b.     Averment of his right of same and that R is

unlawfully in possession;

c.     All persons who claim to be entitled to PO,P or F, may be made parties, and their respective rights to such PO,P,F determined in the same action.

6.1  Usurpation – generally refers to unauthorized arbitrary assumption and exercise of power without color of title or who is not entitled by law thereto.

 

7.     Venue

Where to file QW a. SC

b.     CA

c.     RTC exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area, where the respondent or any of the respondents resides.

 

Solgen – brought in RTC-Manila, CA, SC

7.1  Jurisdiction over QW cases

a.     SC (Section 5(1), Article VIII, Constitution)

b.     CA (BP 129, Section 9) WON in aid of its appellate jurisdiction

c.     RTC – (BP 129, Section 21) – in any part of their respective regions

d.     SB – (RA 8249, Sec.4) – arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed under EO Nos. 1, 2, 14, 14-A.

 

7.2  Filing of petition for QW subject of hierarchy of courts

Mendoza v. Villas: While SC,CA and RTC have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of QW such concurrence is not an unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum, hierarchy of courts to be observed. 

8.     Period for pleadings and proceedings may be reduced; action given precedence Purpose - in order to secure the most expeditious determination of the matters involved therein consistent with the rights of the parties. Such action may be given precedence over any other civil matter pending in the Court.

 

9.     Judgment where usurpation found

When judgment can be issued – when the respondent is found guilty of usurping into, intruding into or unlawfully holding or exercising a public office, position or franchise.

 

Effect of the judgment – Such R be ousted and altogether excluded therefrom, and that the P or Relator, as case may be, recover his costs. Such further judgment may be rendered determining the respective rights in and to the public office, position or franchise of all parties to the action as justice requires.

9.1  Judgment in QW in case of usurpation into the office

The possible outcome of a petition for QW can be any of the following:

Where the action is filed by a private person, he must prove that he is entitled to the controverted position, otherwise respondent has a right to the undisturbed possession of the office.  If the court finds for the respondent, the judgment should simply state that the respondent is entitled to the office. If, however, the court finds for the petitioner and declares the respondent guilty of usurping, intruding into, or unlawfully holding or exercising the office, judgment may be rendered as follows:

 

If it is found that the respondent or defendant is usurping or intruding into the office, or unlawfully holding the same, the court may order: (1) The ouster and exclusion of the defendant from office;

(2)   The recovery of costs by plaintiff or relator;

(3)   The determination of the respective rights in and to the office, position, right, privilege or franchise of all the parties to the action as justice requires.

 

9.2 Judgment in QW does not bind successor in office

 

Ordinarily, a judgment against a public officer in regard to a public right binds his successor in office. This rule, however, is not applicable in quo warranto cases.

 

 A judgment in quo warranto does not bind the respondent's successor in office, even though such successor may trace his title to the same source. This follows from the nature of the writ of quo warranto itself. It is never directed to an officer as such, but always against the person-- to determine whether he is constitutionally and legally authorized to perform any act in, or exercise any function of the office to which he lays claim. 

 

In the case at bar, the petition for quo warranto was filed by petitioner solely against respondent Allas. What was threshed out before the trial court was the qualification and right of petitioner to the contested position as against respondent Ray Allas, not against Godofredo Olores.

 

10.  Rights of persons entitled to public office and delivery of books and papers; damages

Rights of persons entitled to public office

 If judgment be rendered in favour of the person averred in the complaint to be entitled to the public office he may, after taking oath of office and executing any official bond required by law:

a.     Take upon himself the execution of office, and may immediately thereafter demand of the respondent all the books and papers in the resp’s custody or control pertaining to the office to which judgment relates;

b.     The person adjudged entitled to the office may also bring action against the respondent to recover damages sustained. 

Effect of refusal or neglect to deliver book or paper – punished for contempt as having disobeyed a lawful order of court.

11.  Limitations 

When to commence action

 Within 1 year from the cause of such ouster, or the right of the petitioner to hold such office or position, arose, nor  to authorize an action for damages in accordance with the provisions of the next preceding section unless commenced within 1 year after entry of the judgment establishing petitioner’s right to the office. 

 

11.1 Prescriptive period to file petitions for QW and mandamus

Madrigal v. Lecaroz: M alleges that 1 year period prescribed in QW is not applicable in an action for

M. He also contends that exhaustion of administrative remedies is a condition sine qua non before one can petition for mandamus.

 

On the part of public respondents, they aver that it has become an established part of our jurisprudence, being a public policy repeatedly cited by the courts in myriad of mandamus cases, that actions for reinstatement should be brought within one year from the date of dismissal, otherwise, they will be barred by laches.  The pendency of an administrative remedy before the Commission does not stop the running of the one (1) year period within which a mandamus case for reinstatement should be filed.

 

The unbending jurisprudence in this jurisdiction is to the effect that a petition for quo warranto and mandamus affecting titles to public office must be filed within one (1) year from the date the petitioner is ousted from his position.

 

In actions of quo warranto involving right to an office, the action must be instituted within the period of one year. We find this provision to be an expression of policy on the part of the State that persons claiming a right to an office of which they are illegally dispossessed should immediately take steps to recover said office and that if they do not do so within a period of one year, they shall be considered as having lost their right thereto by abandonment.  There are weighty reasons of public policy and convenience that demand the adoption of a similar period for persons claiming rights to positions in the civil service.  There must be stability in the service so that public business may be unduly retarded; delays in the statement of the right to positions in the service must be discouraged.

 

The fatal drawback of Madrigal's cause is that he came to court out of time.  As aforestated, it was only after four (4) years and twenty (20) days from the abolition of his position that he filed the petition for mandamus and damages.  This single circumstance has closed the door for any judicial remedy in his favor.

 

And this one (1) year period is not interrupted by the prosecution of any administrative remedy.  Actually, the recourse by Madrigal to the Commission was unwarranted.  It is fundamental that in a case where pure questions of law are raised, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies cannot apply because issues of law cannot be resolved with finality by the administrative officer.  

 

In the present case, only a legal question is to be resolved, that is, whether or not the abolition of Madrigal's position was in accordance with law.

 

11.2 Prescriptive period of QW under Omnibus Election Code

Effect of filing petition to annul or suspend proclamation – suspend the running of the period within which to file an election protest or QW proceedings

 

11.3 Administrative remedy does not abate the period for QW

Sison v. Pangramuyen: Petitioner contends in regard to this point that Section 16 of Rule 66 invoked by private respondent refers to actions of quo warranto and since his petition is also for certiorari and mandamus, said rule is inapplicable. Such contention is not correct. As earlier noted in this decision, the allegations supporting petitioner's cause or causes of action boil down to no more than the removal of respondent Maliwanag from the position to which she has been appointed in order to be replaced by him, with a new appointment in his favor. Necessarily, the ouster of Maliwanag by quo warranto has to be based on a nullification of her appointment, which petitioner seeks, albeit unnecessarily, by certiorari. His ultimate remedy, therefore, is quo warranto. Besides, even if it could be also viewed as mandamus, it is already settled that his latter remedy prescribes also after one year.  And it is of no avail to petitioner that during the intervening period of more than one year, he was seeking relief from the corresponding administrative authorities. The resort to such administrative remedy does not abate the period for the judicial action.

 

11.4 Exception to the statute of limitations to file QW Cristobal v. Melchor: 

The Government holds fast to Section 16, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court and so did the court a quo in upholding the dismissal of appellant's complaint which according to both is essentially a quo warranto proceeding.

 

In this jurisdiction the consistent doctrine followed by this Court is that in actions of quo warranto involving right to an office, the action must be instituted within the period of one year from the time the cause of action arose.

 

In effect, it is the doctrine of laches which is invoked to defeat Jose Cristobal's suit, for not only did Cristobal fail to file his complaint within one year from the date of separation but, it is claimed, he allowed almost nine years to pass before coming to court by reason of which he is deemed to have acquiesced to his removal.

 

In Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, this Court stated that in a general sense, laches is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.

 

However, as will be indicated below, there are certain exceptional circumstances attending which take this case out of the rule enunciated above and lead the Court to grant

relief to appellant.  Thus –

 

1.             There was no acquiescence to or inaction on the part of Jose Cristobal amounting to abandonment of his right to reinstatement in office.

 

2.             It was an act of the government through its responsible officials more particularly then Executive Secretary Amelito Mutuc and his successors which contributed to the alleged delay in the filing of Cristobal's present complaint for reinstatement. It was this continued promise of the government officials concerned which led Cristobal to bide his time and wait for the Office of the President to comply with its commitment.

 

“The doctrine of laches is an equitable principle applied to promote but never to defeat justice.

 

3.             The dismissal of appellant Cristobal was contrary to law on the strength of this Court's Decision in Ingles vs. Mutuc.

To summarize, with the circumstances thus surrounding this particular case, viz:  

(a)           Jose Cristobal consistently pressed for a reconsideration of his separation from the

service; 

(b)           he was given assurance that he would be recalled at the opportune time; and 

(c)           that the sudden termination of his employment without cause after eight years of service in the government is contrary to law following the ruling in Ingles vs. Mutuc which inures to the benefit of Cristobal who is similarly situated as the plaintiffs in said case and who merely desisted from joining the suit because of the assurance given him that he would be recalled to the service - with all these factors, We repeat, there is justification       for        not        applying            existing jurisprudence to his case.

This Court, applying the principle of equity, need not be bound to a rigid application of the law, but rather its action should conform to the conditions or exigencies of a given problem or situation in order to grant a relief that will serve the ends of justice.

 

12. Judgment for costs

Against whom 

            The Court may render judgment for costs against either: a. Petitioner

b.     Relator

c.     Respondent

d.     Person/s claiming to be corporation or

e.     May apportion the costs as justice requires.