You are on page 1of 7

Special Civil Actions 2000

Edition
Rule 66 QUO WARRANTO

Rule 66 Quo Warranto

What is the meaning of Quo Warranto? That is Latin eh! What is the translation of the term Quo Warranto? Actually, literally that is by what warrant. By what warrant, what does it mean? Let us go back to basic law. WarrantWarrant of Arrest, Search Warrant as understood in Criminal rocedure. !f you are a "oliceman and you ha#e a warrant of arrest and you arrest a "erson, can you be held liable for arbitrary detention or unlawful arrest? $f course not! %ecause ! ha#e a warrant of arrest. !f you ha#e a search warrant, can you be &uestioned for searching a house or sei'ing ob(ect? $f course not. ! ha#e a search warrant. What is the significance of the word warrant? )ou are authori'ed to search or you are authori'ed to arrest. That is the essence of the word warrant. Therefore, warrant is synonymous with authority. )ou are backed u" by a court authority. Why? *or e+am"le you are occu"ying a "ublic office illegally, you are not authori'ed to hold such office but you are holding it as if you are a""ointed. Can you be &uestioned? )es, because there is usur"ation. What is the nature of the action to &uestion your act of usur"ation? Quo Warrantoby what authority! Section 1. Action by Government against individuals An action for the usurpation of a public office, position or franchise ma be commence! b a "erifie! petition brou#ht in the name of the Republic of the $hilippines a#ainst% &a' A person (ho usurps, intru!es into, or unla(full hol!s or e)ercises a public office, position or franchise* &b' A public officer (ho !oes or suffers an act (hich, b the pro"ision of la(, constitutes a #roun! for the forfeiture of his office* or &c' An association (hich acts as a corporation (ithin the $hilippines (ithout bein# le#all incorporate! or (ithout la(ful authorit so to act. &1a' The "etition must be #erified and brought in the name of the ,e"ublic of the hili""ines as the "laintiff, as the general rule. %akit anong "akialam ng gobyerno? ublic $ffice ito. The go#ernment is interested to see to it that all those "erforming "ublic officers are #alidly there. That they are not im"ostors or usur"ers. -ow about cor"oration? Well you cannot act as a cor"oration without the consent or authority of the .tate. That is why you ha#e to incor"orate and get authority of the .tate. Therefore if you act as a cor"oration without the consent or authority of the .tate, you are acting without a #alid franchise. That is why go#ernment is interested. That is why "laintiff is the ,e"ublic of the hili""ines. And therefore, if it is the ,e"ublic of the hili""ines who is interested. /enerally, it is the .olicitor /eneral or "rosecutor (provincial fiscal) will file the case against you. Q: 0efine Quo Warranto. A: Quo Warranto as a demand made by the .tate u"on some indi#idual or association to show by what right they e+ercise some franchise or "ri#ilege a""ertaining to the .tate which according to the constitution and laws of the land, they cannot legally e+ercise by #irtue of grant or authority of the .tate. 122 Am. 3ur. 445 467 Sec. +. When Solicitor General or public prosecutor must commence action The Solicitor ,eneral or a public prosecutor, (hen !irecte! b the $resi!ent of the $hilippines, or (hen upon complaint or other(ise he has #oo! reason to belie"e that an case specifie! in the prece!in# section can be establishe! b proof, must commence such action. &-a' .olicitor /eneral8or "ublic "rosecutor when directed by the resident of the hili""ines must commence the action. When resident orders the .olicitor /eneral to sol#e the issue because there is a "ossible usur"ation here, !ile the case, it is now mandatory for the .olicitor /eneral to file the case.

25

Special Civil Actions 2000

Edition

Rule 66 Quo Warranto

$r for e+am"le, somebody brings to the attention of .olicitor /eneral or "ublic "rosecutor na there seems to be usur"ation here and the .olicitor /eneral9fiscal belie#es that there is usur"ation, then under .ection : he can also file the action or when u"on com"laint or otherwise, he has good reasons to belie#e that any case s"ecified in the "receding section can be established by "roof must commence such action. Sec. -. When Solicitor General or public prosecutor may commence action with permission of court The Solicitor ,eneral or a public prosecutor ma , (ith the permission of the court in (hich the action is to be commence!, brin# such an action at the re.uest an! upon the relation of another person* but in such case the officer brin#in# it ma first re.uire an in!emnit for the e)penses an! costs of the action in an amount appro"e! b an! to be !eposite! in the court b the person at (hose re.uest an! upon (hose relation the same is brou#ht. &/a' Sec. /. When hearing had on application for permission to commence action Upon application for permission to commence such action in accor!ance (ith the ne)t prece!in# section, the court shall !irect that notice be #i"en to the respon!ent so that he ma be hear! in opposition thereto* an! if permission is #rante!, the court shall issue an or!er to that effect, copies of (hich shall be ser"e! on all intereste! parties, an! the petition shall then be file! (ithin the perio! or!ere! b the court. &0a' 0id you notice the ca"tion in .ection : and .ection ;.? !n .ection :, When Solicitor "eneral or public prosecutor #ust co##ence action. !n .ection ;, When Solicitor "eneral or public prosecutor #ay co##ence action with per#ission of court. )ung isa #ust, yung is naman #ay. With that, we will notice that there are two ty"es of <uo Warranto= 1>7 Com"ulsory Quo Warranto under .ection :.? an$ 1:7 0iscretionary Quo Warranto under .ection ;. The best e+am"le of co#pulsory %uo warranto is when the resident of the hili""ines directs the .olicitor /eneral to file the case, then he must com"ly with the order of the resident but that is #ery rare. !n most cases, Quo Warranto is in .ection ;. Like for e+am"le when there are : "eo"le claiming that they are a""ointed to the same "osition. That can ha""en. &'a#ple, ao and 3et claim that they ha#e the right to a "ublic office. $f course ao is the one occu"ying. .abi ni 3et, (hin$i #an siya $apat$apat a)o #an*+ What should 3et do under .ection ;? )ou go to the .olicitor /eneral or to the fiscal and you say, (, a# suppose$ to be the one+ 1.ol/en= @insa ka? .i @eanu? -awa diha uy!7 Aow, it is a "ublic office. .o ! think that this is the concern of the .tate of who should be really occu"ying whether ao or 3et. Aow what will the .olicitor /eneral or the fiscal do? -e may commence the action. -e is allowed. %ut, he may or he may not. That is why it is discretionary. Aow, if he may, under .ection 2, he will ha#e to file a "etition in court asking for "ermission to file the case in behalf of 3et. And ao will be notified. agsinabi ng court na you are authori'ed to file, then the .olicitor /eneral will file. The .olicitor /eneral will take the cudgels for 3et. %ut under .ection ;, the .olicitor /eneral may ask 3et to de"osit some money for e+"enses. Sec. 0. When an individual may commence such an action A person claimin# to be entitle! to a public office or position usurpe! or unla(full hel! or e)ercise! b another ma brin# an action therefor in his o(n name. &6' B+am"le= ! am the one claiming to be entitled to a "ublic office, for e+am"le, the "osition of a City Treasurer. 0a"at ako man dyan , di man siya. What are your o"tions.? -ption one will be, you go to the fiscal or .olicitor /eneral under .ection :. Ang "roblema dito baka he may not want, sabi niya, (, a# not sure eh* .aran/ i)aw pero , a# not convince$. 01201 (isa /atos tanan*)+

26

Special Civil Actions 2000

Edition

Rule 66 Quo Warranto

$r (secon$ option), as in most cases, the "erson who claims that he is entitled to the "ublic office, will not bother to go to the .olicitor /eneral. -e will (ust get his own lawyer and file it. Aow, it is allowed. )ou become, under .ection C, a "erson claiming to be entitled to a "ublic office or "osition usur"ed who may bring an action therefore in his own name. !f you are going to get your own lawyer and file the case, you cannot use the ,e"ublic of the hili""ines as "laintiff. angalan= An/eles vs. .ascua. !f .olicitor /eneral will file, then he will institute the case in the name of the ,e"ublic of the hili""ines. .o another classification of Quo Warranto= 1>7 Quo Warranto in the name of the hili""ines? or 1:7 Quo Warranto in the name of a "ri#ate indi#idual. Sec. 6. Parties and contents of petition against usurpation When the action is a#ainst a person for usurpin# a public office, position or franchise, the petition shall set forth the name of the person (ho claims to be entitle! thereto, if an , (ith an a"erment of his ri#ht to the same an! that the respon!ent is unla(full in possession thereof. All persons (ho claim to be entitle! to the public office, position or franchise ma be ma!e parties, an! their respecti"e ri#hts to such public office, position or franchise !etermine!, in the same action. &1a' Q: When the "laintiff, the "ri#ate indi#idual, files a %uo warranto action for usur"ation, normally, what are the essential allegations based on the com"laint? A: There are two= (1) -e must allege that he is entitled to the "osition? (2) The defendant is unlawfully in the "ossession thereof? Q: !s there a difference, "rocedurally, when the .olicitor /eneral files the Quo Warranto under .ections : and ;, and when the "ri#ate indi#idual files the Quo Warranto under .ections C and D? A: The .C said= )B.. And how do we distinguish? !n the action commenced by the "ri#ate indi#idual, it is necessary for the "etitioner or "laintiff to "ro#e his right to the office in dis"ute. !f he fails to "ro#e this, it is unnecessary for the court to "ass on the right of the defendant in office. 1Acosta #s. *lor, C hil. >47 $n the other hand, in an action commenced by the .olicitor /eneral, it is not necessary that there be a "erson claiming to be entitled to the office alleged to ha#e been usur"ed, thus, the duty of the court is to "ass u"on the right of the defendant only. 1Acosta #s. *lor, C hil. >47 Let us try to illustrate= !f you file an action for %uo warranto against the one who occu"ied, the bur$en of proof na sa iyo, eh. )ou ha#e to "ro#e that you are entitled to the "osition. .u""ose, you cannot "ro#e it, the court will no longer re&uire the defendant to "ro#e his right because he is occu"ying it. The "resum"tion is, he is entitled. Aow, if the .olicitor /eneral files, he is &uestioning immediately the defendantEs authority. -indi kailangan that somebody is claiming. And therefore, if you are not entitled, you are out but nobody will take your "lace. 3ust wait for another a""ointment. Therefore, the court can "ass immediately on the right of the defendant, if it is the .olicitor /eneral filing it. That is the difference. And that distinction has been a""lied by the .C in se#eral cases. ! ha#e to cite a few= TARROSA vs. S2N,SON Fay :C, >662 *ACT.= .ingson, the res"ondent herein referred to is the former /o#ernor of %anko .entral Ag ili"inas 1%. 7. Aow, this "etitioner, 3esus Amado Tarrosa is a ta'payer and he filed a "etition for "rohibition &uestioning the a""ointment of .ingson as /o#ernor. of %. because according to Taro'a, the a""ointment of .ingson has not been confirmed by the Commission on

27

Special Civil Actions 2000

Edition

Rule 66 Quo Warranto

A""ointments in Congress and therefore, the "etition seeks to en(oin from the "erformance of his functions as such official until his a""ointment is confirmed by the Commission on A""ointments. -BL0= Actually , it is not "rohibition but it is %uo warranto, sabi ng .C because he is claiming that .ingson has no authority to occu"y the "osition, therefore, .ingson is guilty of usur"ation. And who is filing the case? Taro'a, the "ri#ate indi#idual. Aow, is Tarrosa claiming that he would be /o#ernor of Central %ank? 0i Fan! -e is &uestioning the a""ointment of .ingson but he is not claiming that he is! .abi ng .C=Ahh, di "wede8because when %uo warranto is filed by "ri#ate indi#idual , the "etitioner must be the one claiming the "osition. %ut he is not! 0ismiss. The Court said= The instant "etition is under the &uo warranto "roceeding as it seeks to oust .ingson and allege that the latter is unlawfully holding or e+ercising the "owers of the /o#ernor of %anko .entral. .uch a s"ecial ci#il action can only be commenced by the .olicitor /eneral or by the "erson claiming to be entitled to a "ublic office or "osition unlawfully held or e+ercised by another. .o, itEs either the .olicitor /eneral or "erson claiming to be entitled. (3aputol na an/ si$e A ) Another case during the time of resident Farcos when he was first elected as "resident under the >6;C Constitution= -e was elected in >6DC. -is first term e+"ired in >6D6 but was re5elected. .o >6D6 "lus 2 G his term must ha#e e+"ired by >6H;. -owe#er in >6H:, he declared Fartial Law and he continued beyond >6H;. That is why, after >6H; a grou" of ta+"ayers 5 Ci#il Liberties Inion 5 something like that, filed a direct action before the .u"reme Court &uestioning the authority of Farcos to hold office beyond >6H;. -ow did the .C dis"osed of the case? .abi ng .C = .o, you are accusing Farcos of usur"ation because he has already o#erstaying in the "residency. Quo Warranto ito eh! .ino ang nag5file ng "etition? @ayo. .ino sa inyo ang nagsabi na you are entitled to the "residency? Wala man ba! .abi nila, we are not clai#in/ to be presi$ent . What we are %uestionin/ is, he is a usurper. Well, kung ganyan, da"at .olicitor /eneral ang mag5file at hindi kayo. .ince you are the one who filed, you must "ro#e that you are entitled to be "resident. !s anyone of you entitled? Wala8alright, the case is dismissed! ThatEs what ha""ened based on this "rinci"le. The only one who can file it if there is no claimant is the then .olicitor /eneral Bstelito Fendo'a. Sec. 1. Venue An action un!er the prece!in# si) sections can be brou#ht onl in the Supreme 3ourt, the 3ourt of Appeals, or in the Re#ional Trial 3ourt e)ercisin# 4uris!iction o"er the territorial area (here the respon!ent or an of the respon!ents resi!es, but (hen the Solicitor ,eneral commences the action, it ma be brou#ht in a Re#ional Trial 3ourt in the 3it of 5anila, in the 3ourt of Appeals, or in the Supreme 3ourt. &6a' Q: $n what courts can you obtain a %uo warranto action A: The following= >. .u"reme Court? :. Court of A""eals? ;. ,egional Trial Court e+ercising (urisdiction o#er the territorial where the res"ondent resides? 2. .andiganbayan under ,A 4:26 in cases which are rele#ant to its (urisdiction. These ; here ha#e concurrent (urisdiction but when the .olicitor /eneral is the one filing, there is no need for him to go to the ,TC of the "lace where the case is filed8 directly to the .C or CA na yan! Q: 0oes the FTC ha#e (urisdiction to entertain a com"laint for %uo warranto? A: !n the case of R7,AT38O vs. 397TO 0ecember :>, >64; -BL0= A "etition for %uo warranto for the dis&ualification of an elected barangay ca"tain must be filed with the FTC. .o, mga barangay elections lang because under the %arangay Law,

28

Special Civil Actions 2000

Edition

Rule 66 Quo Warranto

election "rotests regarding baranggay elections should be filed in the FTC. That is the only instance that a %uo warranto be filed with the FTC. Sec. 6. Period for pleadings and proceedings may be reduced; action given precedence The court ma re!uce the perio! pro"i!e! b these Rules for filin# plea!in#s an! for all other procee!in#s in the action in or!er to secure the most e)pe!itious !etermination of the matters in"ol"e! therein consistent (ith the ri#hts of the parties. Such action ma be #i"en prece!ence o"er an other ci"il matter pen!in# in the court. &:a' Sec. :. Judgment where usurpation found When the respon!ent is foun! #uilt of usurpin#, intru!in# into, or unla(full hol!in# or e)ercisin# a public office, position or franchise, 4u!#ment shall be ren!ere! that such respon!ent be ouste! an! alto#ether e)clu!e! therefrom, an! that the petitioner or relator, as the case ma be, reco"er his costs. Such further 4u!#ment ma be ren!ere! !eterminin# the respecti"e ri#hts in an! to the public office, position or franchise of all the parties to the action as 4ustice re.uires. &1;a' Jery sim"le, when there is usur"ation, the court will render (udgment ousting the occu"ant from the "ublic office concerned. Sec. 1;. ights of persons ad!udged entitled to public office; delivery of boo"s and papers; damages 2f 4u!#ment be ren!ere! in fa"or of the person a"erre! in the complaint to be entitle! to the public office he ma , after ta<in# the oath of office an! e)ecutin# an official bon! re.uire! b la(, ta<e upon himself the e)ecution of the office, an! ma imme!iatel thereafter !eman! of the respon!ent all the boo<s an! papers in the respon!ent=s custo! or control appertainin# to the office to (hich the 4u!#ment relates. 2f the respon!ent refuses or ne#lects to !eli"er an boo< or paper pursuant to such !eman!, he ma be punishe! for contempt as ha"in# !isobe e! a la(ful or!er of the court. The person a!4u!#e! entitle! to the office ma also brin# action a#ainst the respon!ent to reco"er the !ama#es sustaine! b such person b reason of the usurpation. &10a' !f the defendant is ousted from office by the (udgment in %uo warranto, he is su""osed to turn o#er the office to the rightful occu"ant, together with the books and "a"ers which are in his "ossession and if he fails to do it, it is contem"tuous according to .ection >K. )ou can be "unished for contem"t and damages will also be reco#ered by another action after usur"ation is confirmed. Sec. 11. #imitations Nothin# containe! in this Rule shall be construe! to authori>e an action a#ainst a public officer or emplo ee for his ouster from office unless the same be commence! (ithin one &1' ear after the cause of such ouster, or the ri#ht of the petitioner to hol! such office or position, arose* nor to authori>e an action for !ama#es in accor!ance (ith the pro"isions of the ne)t prece!in# section unless the same be commence! (ithin one &1' ear after the entr of the 4u!#ment establishin# the petitioner=s ri#ht to the office in .uestion. &16a' $ne im"ortant "oint to remember is= An action for %uo warranto can be filed against the alleged usur"er not later than one 1>7 year from the date of usur"ation. That is a condition "recedent more than a "rescri"ti#e "eriod. .o after > year, wala na. Q: %akit one year? A: .C e+"lains= the reason for the limitation of > year is that it is not "ro"er that the title to a "ublic office be sub(ected to a continued uncertainty and the "eo"leEs interest re&uires that such right be determined as s"eedily as "racticable. 1Cuyo #s. City Fayor, $./. CH;, 3anuary >4, >6DK7 Feaning, if there is usur"ation that should be &uestioned immediately and assuming that is filed an action for %uo warranto on time.

29

Special Civil Actions 2000

Edition

Rule 66 Quo Warranto

)ou ha#e also one 1>7 year. to file an action for damages against the usur"er because .ection >K also says that the action for damages must be files within > year. after the entry of (udgment establishing the "etitionerEs right to the office in &uestion. Sec. 1+. Judgment for costs 2n an action brou#ht in accor!ance (ith the pro"isions of this Rule, the court ma ren!er 4u!#ment for costs a#ainst either the petitioner, the relator, or the respon!ent, or the person or persons claimin# to be a corporation, or ma apportion the costs, as 4ustice re.uires. &11a' This relator is the "erson mentioned in .ec. ;, the "erson who will re&uest the .olicitor /eneral to file the case. %efore we lea#e ,ule DD, we will now com"are %uo warranto from other known remedies similar to %uo warranto because if we donEt know how to detect the distinction, you may get confused with the ty"e of action filed. LetEs go back to mandamus. ,ule DC, .ection. ;. 0o you know the second "ossible ground for mandamus? When the respon$ent has unlawfully e'clu$e$ another fro# the en4oy#ent of an office ..."arang %uo warranto yun. And therefore, the two remedies can be confused with each other. And "roblems in the %A, will be ask where the answer would de"end whether you can distinguish one from the other. CA.B L>= *or e+am"le, you are a""ointed as City Treasurer and while you are claiming the office, Fr. eloton is there also claiming he is the rightful duly a""ointed Treasurer. 0alawa na kayo. )ou belie#e that Fr. eloton is a usur"er and belie#e that he is not entitled. What kind of a case you will file against him? That is a clear case of %uo warranto. There is usur"ation. CA.B L:= $n the other hand, letEs try another "roblem slightly different from the first "roblem. A city treasurer retired. %ecause he retired, the Assistant Treasurer became the acting until the successor or the new a""ointee will come in. Aow, you are a""ointed by the resident as the new Treasurer. .o you go there and you are claiming that you are now the a""ointee and the acting there will say, ($i a)o #aniwala, , $o not believe in your appoint#ent. , refuse to relin%uish.+ .abi naman ng isa= (, a# the one appointe$* 5ou are suppose$ to vacate the office because you are only actin/.+ Assistant Treasurer= MAh, , $ont believe you, your papers are $efective.+ Ano man ang gawin mo? Ayaw niyang umalis. Would you file an action for %uo warranto? The answer is A$. )ou will file an action for #an$a#us to com"el him to gi#e u" the "osition. What is the $ifference between the first an$ the secon$6 !n the first, if we will notice, the "erson that you are dri#ing out is also claiming the right to the "osition. .o, there is the essence of usur"ation but in the second e+am"le, the acting treasurer is not really claiming a "ermanent right in the office. .o heEs not actually a usur"er, but definitely he is e+cluded from the en(oyment of office in which he is entitled. The correct remedy is #an$a#us to com"el him to #acate the "osition because you are now the new a""ointee. Q: .o again, how do you distinguish s"ecial ci#il action of %uo warranto from the s"ecial ci#il action of #an$a#us= A: The following are the distinctions= >. Quo Warranto is the remedy to the office and to oust the holder from its en(oyment. $n the other hand, #an$a#us tries to clear duties. !t is not a remedy to dis"uted titles? :. when there is usur"ation or intrusion to an office, Quo Warranto is the "ro"er remedy but where the defendant without claiming any right from office e+cludes the "etition therefrom, the remedy is 7an$a#us. 1Lota #s. CA, 3une ;K, >6D>7 Another thing that we ha#e to remember is that there is %uo warranto under the ,ules of Court. Feron ding %uo warranto under the Blection Code. Inder the election code, it is only >K days eh. Within >K days from the time the "ublic official is "roclaimed. Q: There are two "ossible actions that you can file against him= election protest and the other one is %uo warranto. Therefore the &uestion is= !nsofar as electi#e "ositions are concerned, what is the difference between a %uo warranto and election protest? A= The following are the distinctions=

30

Special Civil Actions 2000

Edition

Rule 66 Quo Warranto

>. When somebody is "roclaimed and you would like to file an action for %uo warranto, what will be your grounds against a "roclaimed or elected candidate? ,neli/ibility for the "osition, or $isloyalty to the go#ernment. %ut the most common is ineligibility. *or e+am"le, you are "roclaimed elected yun "ala di ka *ili"ino citi'en. 3ust like in the case of /o#. *ri#aldo because it turned out that he is not a *ili"ino citi'en. .o he is ousted, %uo warranto yan eh, he is not &ualified "ala to run. That is the ground for %uo warranto. -ow about election protest? What is the ground? The dis"ute refers to the counting of #otes, conduct of election, misa""reciation of ballots, #ote buying, terrorism. )ou are &uestioning the manner or irregularities in the conduct of the election. !n %uo warranto, you are not &uestioning the conduct of the election but you are not &ualified to run in the first "lace. And both election protest and %uo warranto must be filed within >K days from the date of the "romulgation . 1/regorio #s. 0e 3esus, DC hil. ;;:7 :. !n %uo warranto, if for e+am"le, the elected candidate turned out to be ineligible, you will be declared as ousted or dis&ualified. Who will take the "lace? The second "lacer? Ao, the second "lacer doesnEt take the "lace of the ineligible winner because the second "lacer was not elected by the "eo"le. .ino ang mag5 takeo#er8yung nag5file ? Ao8di ka man din elected. .o, sino? )ung Jice5 Fayor will now become the Fayor. $n the other hand, in election protest, the "erson who filed the "rotest is the "rotestant and the one who was elected is the "rotestee. .o, if the "rotestant wins in the "rotest, the "rotestee is ousted and the "rotestant takes o#er. 1Luison #s. /arcia, CC $./. >K:C:7 Q: Aow, the third "oint. -ow do you distinguish a %uo warranto as to an electi#e office form %uo warranto as to an a""ointi#e office? A: The following are the distinctions= >. !n electi#e "osition, What is the issue? The issue is ineligibility of the candidate elected. While in a""ointi#e office, the issue is the legality of a""ointment. :. .econd, we said in %uo warranto that if the candidate5elect is found to be ineligible the court cannot "lace the candidate occu"ying the second "lace in the office because the electi#e offices are deternined by "rerogati#e #otes. $n the other hand, when it comes to %uo warranto as to an a""ointi#e office, the court can determine who was legally a""ointed and can declare who is entitled to occu"y the office. The "erson who filed could be and he will be declared as the one rightfully entitled to occu"y the office. ;. Where filed? /enerally, courts in case of a""ointi#e office, or Ci#il .er#ice Commission. @ung electi#e, well, it could be in the "ro"er electoral tribunal or C$FBLBC or ,TC. When it comes to munici"al officials 5 ,TC. That is the "ro"er court. 2. When filed? !n appointive 5 "romulgation. one 1>7 year. !n elective G ten 1>K7 days from the date of

5o$o5

31