F. Quo Warranto (Rule 66)

Quo Warranto

A petition for quo warranto is a proceeding to determine the right of a person to the use or exercise of a franchise or office and to oust the holder from its enjoyment, if his claim is not wellfounded, or if he has forfeited his right to enjoy the privilege. 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. (Velasco v. Belmonte, G.R. No. 211140, 2016)

Object of Quo Warranto

• Determine the right of a person to use or exercise of a franchise or office; and
• Oust the holder from its enjoyment, if his claim is not well-founded, or if he has forfeited his right to enjoy the office. (Tecson v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161434, 2004)

Nature of a Quo Warranto

• It is a direct, not a collateral attack, on the matter assailed.
• It is a proceeding against a public officer, not in his official capacity, because no official power or right or duty is sought, but because the officer’s title to the office is being questioned.
• It is a proceeding of a public nature filed by a prosecuting attorney ex officio such as by the Solicitor General or fiscal. (But it is personal in nature as to the person claiming office)

Who May Commence an Action for Quo Warranto

• The Solicitor General or a public prosecutor [MANDATORY quo warranto];
• Upon direction of the President;
• Upon complaint; or
• When he has good reason to believe he can establish a case on the grounds in Sec. 1
• The Solicitor General or a public prosecutor at the request and upon relation of another person [ex relatione];
• The petitioner must first obtain a leave of court
• The petitioner may also require an indemnity bond to the relator
• A private person claiming to be entitled to the usurped or unlawfully held office.
• The petitioner will not need to secure intervention of the Solicitor General or a fiscal;
• The action will be brought in his name.
• Petitioner must be able to show or establish that he has a clear right to the position, AND that the person holding the office is a mere usurper. (Sec. 5, Rule 66)

The action is brought against:

• A person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, position or franchise;
• A public officer who does or suffers an act which, by the provision of law, constitutes a ground for the forfeiture of his office; or
• An association which acts as a corporation within the Philippines without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority so to act. (Sec. 1, Rule 66)

NOTE: Rule 66 of the Rules of Court does not apply to quo warranto cases against persons who usurp an office in a private corporation. (Calleja v. Panday, G.R. No. 168696, 2006)

DISTINGUISH: QUO WARRANTO UNDER THE RULES OF COURT AND QUO WARRANTO UNDER THE OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE

Quo Warranto vs. Mandamus

Quo warranto tests the title to one’s office claimed by another and has as its object the ouster of the holder from its enjoyment, while mandamus seeks to enforce clear legal duties and not to try disputed titles. (Garces v. CA, G.R. No. 114795, 1996)

Updated: Quo warranto may test an impeachable officer’s legal title to office because impeachment is not the exclusive remedy for that question (Republic v. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, 11 May 2018).

D. Quo Warranto (Rule 66)

WHEN GOVERNMENT COMMENCES AN ACTION AGAINST INDIVIDUALS OR ASSOCIATIONS

When Commenced

The Solicitor General or the public prosecutor must commence an action for quo warranto when:

• Directed by the President of the Philippines; or
• Upon complaint or otherwise, he has good reason to believe that a case where a quo warranto may be filed can be established by proof. (Sec. 2, Rule 66)

A case for quo warranto may be filed by the government against the following individuals:

• A person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, position or franchise;
• A public officer who does or suffers an act which, by the provision of law, constitutes a ground for the forfeiture of his office; or
• An association which acts a corporation within the Philippines without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority so to act. (Sec 1, Rule 66)

A petition to prohibit the release of illegal advertisements by a “Legal Clinic” run mainly by paralegals (unauthorized practice of law), must properly be brought to the Solicitor General to commence an action of quo warranto against the company in light of their misuse of the corporate charter. When the advertisements released by the company seem to celebrate bigamy, illegal marriages, or divorce, the same must be enjoined immediately by the court. (Ulep v. The Legal Clinic, Bar Matter no. 553, 1993; Secs. 2 & 3, Rule 66 in relation to Revised Corporation Code, Sec. 19 & P.D. No. 902-A, Sec. 6[1]).

Where the Action is Brought if Solicitor General Commences Action

When the action is commenced by the Solicitor General, the petition may be brought in the:

• Regional Trial Court of the City of Manila;
• Court of Appeals; or
• Supreme Court. (Sec. 7, Rule 66)

Quo Warranto Against Corporations

May be brought against an association acting as a corporation within the Philippines without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority to act. (Sec. 19, Revised Corporation Code).

This refers to de facto corporations: those issued a certificate of incorporation although it had not fully complied with the laws. (Id.)

De facto Corporation: one which in good faith claims to be a corporation, was organized in accordance and pursuant to a valid law, and assumes corporate powers because it was issued a certificate of incorporation. (RIANO 2016 ed., p. 279)

Its corporate existence can be directly attacked by a quo warranto proceeding (Corporation Code, Sec. 19)

Intra-Corporate Dispute

Quo Warranto proceedings against persons who usurp the office, powers or functions of duly elected board members within a corporation are not within the Scope of Rule 66. (Calleja v. Panday, G.R. No. 168696, 2006).

Who May Commence an Action; Exception

General Rule: Government, through Solicitor General; or Public Prosecutor. (Sec. 2, Rule 66).

Exception: Individual claiming to be entitled to a public office or position usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another. (Sec. 5, Rule 66)

In bringing a petition for quo warranto, a private individual must show that he has a clear right to the office allegedly being held by another. It is not enough that he merely asserts the right to be appointed to the office. (Cuevas v. Bacal, G.R. No. 139382, 2000)

The petitioner must also FIRST prove his entitlement or right to the office, and cannot simply rely on the defects in the qualifications of the respondent. Failing this, the petition can be dismissed at any stage and the court will not pass on the qualifications or eligibility of the holder of the office/respondent. (Acosta v. Flor, G.R. No. 2122, 1905)

An action of quo warranto is filed prematurely when the nature of the position is yet to be adjudged under a review on certiorari action in the CA as to whether it is of a de facto or de jure capacity. This also constitutes forum shopping. (Feliciano v. Villasin, G.R. No. 174929, 2008)

WHERE THE ACTION IS BROUGHT IF THE ACTION IS COMMENCED BY OTHER PERSONS

• Supreme Court;
• Court of Appeals; or
• Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area where the respondent or any of the respondents reside. (Sec. 7, Rule 66)

JUDGMENT IN QUO WARRANTO ACTION

When the respondent is found guilty of usurping, intruding into, or unlawfully holding or exercising a public office, position, or franchise, judgment shall be rendered that such respondent to be ousted and altogether excluded therefrom.

Petitioner or relator may recover his costs.

Such further judgment may be rendered determining the respective rights of all the parties to the action as justice requires. (Sec. 9, Rule 66)

RIGHTS OF A PERSON ADJUDGED ENTITLED TO PUBLIC OFFICE

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

• Take upon himself the execution of the office
• Demand of the respondent all the books and the papers in the respondent’s custody or control appertaining to the office. If he refuses or neglects to do so, he may be punished for contempt.
• Bring an action for damages against respondent sustained by him by reason of the usurpation (Sec. 10, Rule 66)

When a quo warranto case is rendered moot and academic, but the injunction order issued in such pending case was disobeyed, the petitioner is still entitled to receive compensation in damages from such disobedience by the party previously proceeded against. (Villanueva v. Rosqueta, G.R. No. 180764, 2010)

Limitation as to Period to File

General Rule: The action must be commenced within 1 year from date after the cause of such ouster or the right of the petitioner to hold such office or position arose. (Sec. 11, Rule 66)

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. He who claims the right to hold a public office allegedly usurped by another and who desires to seek redress in the courts, should file the proper judicial action within the reglementary period. (Galano v. Roxas, G.R. No. L-31241, 1975)

Exception: Laches does not attach and failure to file quo warranto proceeding does not operate adversely against a dismissed government employee where it was the act of responsible government official which contributed in the delay of the filing of complaint for reinstatement. (Cristobal v. Melchor, G.R. No. L-43203, 1977)