You are on page 1of 3

8.

RULE 66: QUO WARRANTO

holding office and


action
must
be
commenced within 1
year from cause of
ouster or from the
time the right of
petitioner to hold
office arose.

Q: What is quo warranto?


A: It is a proceeding or writ issued by the court
to determine the right to use an office, position
or franchise and to oust the person holding or
exercising such office, position or franchise if
his right is unfounded or if a person performed
acts considered as grounds for forfeiture of
said exercise of position, office or franchise.

Petitioner is person
entitled
to
office
(Riano,
Civil
Procedure:
A
Restatement for the
Bar, pp.
672, 2009 ed.).

Note: It is commenced by a verified petition


brought in the name of the Republic of the
Philippines or in the name of the person claiming
to be entitled to a public office or position usurped
or unlawfully held or exercised by another (Sec. 1,
Rule 66).

Person
adjudged
entitled to the office
may bring a separate
action against the
respondent
to
recover
damages.
(Sec 11, Rule 66,
Rules of Court)

Q: What is the nature and purpose of quo


warranto?
A: It literally means by what authority and
the object is 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 well-founded, or if he has forfeited
his right to enjoy the office (Tecson v. Comelec,
424 SCRA 227).
a. Distinguish from quo
omnibus election code

warranto

in

Q: Distinguish quo warranto under Rule


66 from quo warranto in electoral
proceedings.
A:

proclamation of
the
candidate.
(Riano,
Civil
Procedure:
A
Restatement for
the Bar, pp.
672, 2009 ed.).
Petitioner may be
any voter even if
he is not entitled
to
the
office.
(Riano,
Civil
Procedure:
A
Restatement for
the Bar, pp.
672, 2009 ed.).
Actual
or
compensatory
damages
are
recoverable
in
quo
warranto
proceedings
under
the
Omnibus Election
Code.

Note: If the dispute is as to the counting of votes


or on matters connected with the conduct of the
election, quo warranto is not the proper remedy
but an election protest (Cesar v. Garrido, G.R. No.
30705, Mar. 25, 1929).

Q: Distinguish quo warranto in elective


office from an appointive office.
A:

Quo
Warranto
Under Rule 66

Quo Warranto
In
Electoral
Proceedings

Issue is legality of
the occupancy of the
office by virtue of a
legal
appointment
(Riano,
Civil
Procedure:
A
Restatement for the
Bar, pp.
672, 2009 ed.).

Issue iseligibility
of the person
elected
(Riano,
Civil Procedure: A
Restatement for
the Bar, pp.
672, 2009 ed.).

Grounds: usurpation,
forfeiture, or illegal
association (Sec 1,
Rule 66, Rules of
Court)
Presupposes that the
respondent
is
already
actually

Grounds:
ineligibility
or
disqualification to
hold the office
(sec
253,
Omnibus Election
Code)
Petition must be
filed within 10
days from the

Elective Office
Issue: eligibility of
the respondent

Occupant declared
ineligible/disloyal
will be unseated
but petitioner will
not be declared the
rightful occupant of
the office. (Nuval v
Guray, 52 Phil 653
on the resolution of
the
motion
for
reconsideration)

Appointive Office
Issue: validity of
the appointment
Court will oust the
person
illegally
appointed and will
order the seating
of the person who
was
legally
appointed
and
entitled
to
the
office; The Court
has to declare who
the person entitled
to the office is if he
is
a
petitioner
(Nuval v Guray, 52
Phil 653 on the
resolution of the
motion
for
reconsideration).

Q: Against whom a quo warranto may be


filed?
A: The action must be filed against:
a. A person who usurps, intrudes into, or
unlawfully holds or exercises a public
office, position or franchise;
b. A public officer who does or suffers an
act which, by the provision of law,
constitutes a ground for the forfeiture
of his office; and
c. An association which acts as a
corporation within the Philippines
without being legally incorporated or
without lawful authority so to act (de
facto corporation) (Sec. 1, Rule 66).
Note:
Actions
of
quo
warranto
against
corporations now fall under the jurisdiction of the
RTC acting as Special Commercial Courts (Sec.
5.2, Securities Regulations Code). Quo warranto
will only lie against DE FACTO corporations.

b. When government may commence an


action against individuals#
c. When individual may commence an
action
Q: Who may commence the action?
A:
(a) Solicitor General
(b) Public Prosecutor
(c) Individual claiming to be entitled to the
office or position usurped or unlawfully
held or exercised by another (Sec. 5 Rule
66)
Note: By analogy with provisions of Sec. 5, it has
been held that a public utility may bring a quo
warranto action against another public utility
which has usurped the rights of the former
granted under franchise (Cui v. Cui, 60 PHIL 57,
April
9,
1934;
Regalado,
Remedial Law
Compendium, Vol. I, p. 821, 10th ed.).

Q: What are the classifications of quo


warranto proceedings?
A:
1.

Mandatory brought by the Solicitor


General or Public prosecutor when:
a.
directed by the President;
b.
upon complaint or when he has
reason to believe that the cases for quo
warranto can be established by proof
(Sec. 2, Rule 66)
c.
at the request and upon the
relation
if
another
person
(ex
relatione), but leave of court must first
be obtained. (Sec. 3, Rule 66)

2.

Discretionary brought by the Solicitor


General or a public prosecutor at the
request and upon the relation of another
person, provided there must be:
a.
leave of court
b.
at the request and upon the
relation of another person
c.
indemnity bond (Sec. 3, Rule
66)

Q: When an individual may bring an


action for quo warranto and what must he
show?
A: A person claiming to be entitled to a public
office or position usurped or unlawfully held or
exercised by another may bring an action
therefor in his own name (Sec. 5, Rule 66).
Such person may maintain action without the
intervention of the Solicitor General and
without need for any leave of court. He must
show that he has a clear right to the office
allegedly being held by another (Cuevas vs.
Bacal, 347 SCRA 338).
Note: The Solicitor General or public prosecutor
may commence the action at the instance of
another person. In this case, leave of court is
necessary (Sec. 3, Rule 66).

Q: Where is quo warranto proceeding


filed?
A:
1. It can be brought only in the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals, or in the
Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction
over the territorial area where the
respondent or any of the respondents
resides;
Note: The petition may be brought in the SB
in certain cases but when in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction. (PD 1606, Sec. 4 as
amended by R.A No. 8249, Sec. 4; Riano, Civil
Procedure: A Restatement for the Bar, p. 670,
2009 ed)

2. When the Solicitor General commences the


action, it may be brought in a Regional Trial
Court in the City of Manila, in the Court of
Appeals, or in the Supreme Court (Sec. 7,
Rule 66).
Q: What are the contents of a petition for
quo against usurpation?
A: The petition shall set forth the following:
(a) The name of the person who claim to
be entitled thereto;

(b) If any, with an averment of his right to


the same and that the respondent is
unlawfully in possession thereof;
(c) All persons who claim to be entitled to
the public office, position or franchise
may be made parties, and their
respective rights to such public office,
position or franchise determined, in the
same action (Sec. 6, Rule 66).
Q: Whithin what period should a person
ousted from office file a petition for quo
warranto? Is there an exception?
A: An action for quo warranto must be
commenced within one (1) year after the cause
of such ouster, or the right of the petitioner to
hold such office or position, arose (Sec. 11,
Rule 66). The failure to institute the same
within the reglementary period constitutes
more than a sufficient basis for its dismissal
(Alejo v. Marquez, 37 SCRA 76), since it is not
proper that the title to a public office be
subjected to continued uncertainty (Villegas v.
De la Cruz, 15 SCRA 720).
An exception to this prescriptive period lies
only if the failure to file the action can be
attributed to the acts of a responsible
government officer and not of the dismissed
employee (Conchita Romualdez-Yap v. CSC, et.
al., GR No. 104226, Aug. 12, 1993).
Notes:
The periods within which quo warranto action
should be brought are a condition precedent to
the existence of a cause of action.
The pendency of administrative remedies does not
operate to suspend the period of one year within
which a petition for quo warranto should be filed.
While it may be desirable that administrative
remedies be first resorted to, no one is compelled or
bound to do so, and as said remedies neither are prerequisite to nor bar the institution of quo warranto
proceedings, they should not be allowed to suspend
the period of one year. Public interest requires that
the right to a public office should be determined as
speedily as practicable (Torres v. Quintos, G.R. No. L3304, April 5, 1951).

The court may reduce the period provided by


these Rules for filing pleadings and for all other
proceedings in the action 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
(Sec. 8, Rule 66).

Q: Is recovery of damages against the


usurper of office allowed?
A: Yes. If the petitioner is adjudged to be
entitled to the office, he may sue for damages
against the alleged usurper within 1 year from
entry of judgment establishing his right to the
office in question (Sec. 11, Rule 66).
d. Judgment in Quo Warranto Action
Q: What is the effect of a judgment in Quo
Warranto case?
A: 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 be ousted and altogether
excluded therefrom, and that the petitioner or
relator, as the 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 the parties
to the action as justice requires (Sec. 9, Rule
66).
e. Rights of a person adjudged entitled to
public office
Q: What are the rights of persons
adjudged to be entitled to the office?
A: 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:
i.
take upon himself the execution of
the office;
ii.
may
immediately
thereafter
demand all the books and papers
in the respondents custody or
control appertaining to the office to
which the judgment relates; and
iii.
may bring an action against the
respondent to recover damages
sustained by such persons by
reason of usurpation (Sec. 10, Rule
66).
Note: A quo warranto proceeding is one of the
instances where exhaustion of administrative
remedies is not required (Celestial vs. Cachopero,
G.R. No. 142595, Oct. 15, 2003, Riano, Civil
Procedure: A Restatement for the Bar, p. 671,
2009 ed.).