Issue

2. Whether the petition is outrightly dismissible on the ground of prescription;

Arguments of both parties

Petitioner

-The Republic, through the OSG, claims that an action for quo warranto is the proper remedy to
question the validity tition is seasonably filed within the one-year reglementary period under Section 11,
Rule 66, 63 of the Rules of Court since respondent's transgressions only came to light during the
proceedings of the House Committee on Justice on the allegations of the impeachment complaint filed
against her. Alternatively, the Republic claims that it has an imprescriptible right to bring a quo warranto
petition under the maxim nullum tempus occurit regi. Deductive

-It argues that the one- year period provided under Section 11 of Rule 66 merely applies to individuals
who are claiming rights to a public office, and not to the State. To consider the instant petition as time-
barred, the Republic argues, is to force the State to spend its resources in favor of an unqualified
person.Deductive

Respondent

-Respondent argues that the present petition is time-barred as Section 11, Rule 66 provides that a
petition for quo warranto must be filed within one ( 1) year from the "cause of ouster" and not from the
"discovery" of the disqualification. Deductive

SC Ruling

-That the present Rule 66 on quo warranto takes root from Act No. 160, which is a legislative act, does
not give the one-year rule on prescription absolute application. Deductive

-Agcaoili cites People ex rel. Moloney v. Pullmans Palace Car Co., 202 to emphasize that the State isnot
bound by statute of limitations nor by the laches, acquiescence or unreasonable delay on the part of its
officers:
It is conceded, the state, acting in its character as a sovereign, is not bound by any statute of limitations
or technical estoppel. It is urged, however, that in quo warranto, under the common-law rule, the
courts, in the exercise of their discretion to grant the writ or not, or upon final hearing, refused aid when
the conditions complained of had existed for a number of years with knowledge on the part of the
sovereign, and that the provisions of § 1 of chapter 112 of the Revised Statutes, entitled Quo Warranto,
that leave to file the information shall be given if the court or judge to whom the petition is presented
shall be satisfied there is probable cause for the proceeding, leave the court still possessed of power to
consider upon the hearing, and then apply the same doctrine of waiver and acquiescence. It is the
general rule that laches, acquiescence, or unreasonable delay in the performance of duty on the part of
the officers of the state, is not imputable to the state when acting in its character as a sovereign. There
are exceptions to this general rule, but we are unable to see that the allegations of the plea bring the
case within the principles of any such exceptions. Deductive
-Indeed, on point is People v. Bailey, when it ruled that because quo warranto serves to end a
continuous usurpation, no statute of limitations applies to the action. Needless to say, no prudent and
just court would allow an unqualified person to hold public office, much more the highest position in the
Judiciary. Deductive

-In this case, the Republic cannot be faulted for questioning respondent's qualification· for office only
upon discovery of the cause of ouster.deductive

-At any rate, even the theorized applicability of Act No. 3326 will not work to respondent's advantage
given that Section 2218 thereof provides that the prescriptive period shall be reckoned either from the
day of the commission of the violation of the law, or if such be not known at the time, from the
discovery thereof and the institution of the judicial proceeding for its investigation and punishment.
Deductive

-The Court cannot compromise on the importance of settling the controversy surrounding the highest
position in the Judiciary only to yield to the unacceptable plea of technicality. It is but more prudent to
afford the Republic, as well as the respondent, ample opportunities to present their cases for a proper
and just disposition of the case instead of dismissing the petition outright on the ground of prescription.
Deductive