QUO WARRANTO In quo warranto, the cause of action lies on the usurping, intruding,
or unlawfully holding or exercising of public office, while in
Abad v. Dela Cruz
The title of a de facto officer cannot be indirectly questioned. Having
at least colorable right to the office, the de facto officer's title can be
determined only in a quo warranto proceeding or information in the
nature of a quo warranto at suit of the sovereign.
Moro v. Del Castillo
In quo warranto, the petitioner who files the action in his name must
prove that he is entitled to the subject public office. Otherwise, the
person who holds the same has a right to undisturbed possession and
the action for quo warranto may be dismissed.
Arquero v. CA
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 against the person who is alleged to have usurped,
intruded into, or unlawfully held or exercised the public office. It may
be brought by the Republic of the Philippines or by the person
claiming to be entitled to such office.
Ong v. Office of the President
In quo warranto proceedings, the petitioner must show that he has a
clear right to the office allegedly held unlawfully by another and in the
absence of the said right, the lack of qualification or eligibility of the
supposed usurper is immaterial.
Stated differently, where a non-eligible holds a temporary
appointment, his replacement by another non-eligible is not
prohibited.
Republic v. Sereno
The remedy of quo warranto is vested in the people, and not in any
private individual or group, because disputes over title to public office
are viewed as public question of governmental legitimacy and not
merely private quarrel among rival claimants.
While both impeachment and quo warranto may result in the ouster
of the public official, the two proceedings materially differ. At its most
basic, impeachment proceedings are political in nature, while an
action for quo warranto is judicial or proceeding traditionally lodged
in the courts.
Impeachment is proceeding exercised by the legislative, as
representatives of the sovereign, to vindicate the breach of the trust
reposed by the people in the hands of the public officer by
determining the public officer's fitness to stay in the office.
Meanwhile, an action for quo warranto, involves judicial
determination of the eligibility or validity of the election or
appointment of public official based on predetermined rules.
Aside from the difference in their origin and nature, quo
warranto and impeachment may proceed independently of each
other as these remedies are distinct as to (1) jurisdiction (2) grounds,
(3) applicable rules pertaining to initiation, filing and dismissal, and (4)
limitations.
impeachment, it is the commission of an impeachable offense.
Respondent in quo warranto proceeding shall be adjudged to cease
from holding public office, which he/she is ineligible to hold. On the
other hand, in impeachment, conviction for the charges of
impeachable offenses shall result to the removal of the respondent
from the public office that he/she is legally holding. It is not legally
possible to impeach or remove person from an office that he/she, in
the first place, does not and cannot legally hold or occupy.
The term "quo warranto" is Latin for "by what authority." Therefore,
as the name suggests, quo warranto is writ of inquiry. It determines
whether an individual has the legal right to hold the public office he
or she occupies.
In quo warranto proceedings referring to offices filled by election,
what is to be determined is the eligibility of the candidates elected,
while in quo warranto proceedings referring to offices filled by
appointment, what is determined is the legality of the appointment.
The remedies available in quo warranto judgment do not include
correction or reversal of acts taken under the ostensible authority of
an office or franchise. Judgment is limited to ouster or forfeiture and
may not be imposed retroactively upon prior exercise of official or
corporate duties.
The essence of quo warranto is to protect the body politic from the
usurpation of public office and to ensure that government authority
is entrusted only to qualified individuals.
Reason therefore dictates that quo warranto should be an available
remedy to question the legality of appointments especially of
impeachable officers considering that they occupy some of the
highest-ranking offices in the land and are capable of wielding vast
power and influence on matters of law and policy.
Ordinary statutes of limitation, civil or penal, have no application to
quo warranto proceeding brought to enforce public right.
The burden of proof in quo warranto proceeding is different when it
is filed by the State. Floyd Mechem in his book, entitled A Treatise on
the Law of Public Offices and Officers, explains that when the
respondent is called upon at the suit of the State to show by what
warrant he assumes to exercise the functions of public office, the
burden of proving his title rests upon the respondent.
When, however, the respondent has made out prima facie right to
the office, it is only at that time that the burden of evidence shifts to
the State.
Aguinaldo v. Aquino III
Being included in the list of nominees gives only the possibility, but
not the certainty, of being appointed to the position, given the
discretionary power of the President in making judicial appointments.
Cardino v. COMELEC
Any voter contesting the election of any Member of the Batasang
Pambansa, regional, provincial, or city officer on the ground of
ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines shall file
a sworn petition for quo warranto with the COMELEC within ten days
after the proclamation of the results of the election.

David v. Senate Electoral Tribunal, et al.

In an action for quo warranto, the burden of proof necessarily falls on
the party who brings the action and who alleges that the respondent
is ineligible for the office involved in the controversy. In proceedings
before quasi-judicial bodies such as the Senate Electoral Tribunal, the
requisite quantum of proof is substantial evidence.
This burden was petitioner's to discharge. Once the petitioner makes
a prima facie case, the burden of evidence shifts to the respondent.

De Castro v. Carlos
Although Section 5(1) of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution explicitly
provides that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over
petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and
habeas corpus, the jurisdiction of this Court is not exclusive but is
concurrent with that of the Court of Appeals and regional trial court
and does not give petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court
forum.

General v. Urro
While a quo warranto is a special civil action, the existence of a cause
of action is not any less required since both special and ordinary civil
actions are governed by the rules on ordinary civil actions subject only
to the rules prescribed specifically for a particular special civil action.

If the petitioner fails to establish his cause of action for quo warranto,
a discussion of the constitutionality of the appointments of the
respondents is rendered completely unnecessary.
The inclusion of the grounds for certiorari and/or prohibition does not
alter the essential character of the petitioner’s action since he does
not even allege that he has a personal and substantial interest in
raising the constitutional issue insofar as the other respondents are
concerned.

Mendoza v. Villas
With the conduct of the 2010 barangay elections, a supervening event
has transpired that has rendered this case moot and academic and
subject to dismissal. Mendoza’s term of office has expired with the
conduct of last year’s local elections. Mendoza no longer has any legal
standing to further pursue the case.

Vilando v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

There is no basis to oblige the Tribunal to reopen the naturalization
proceedings for a determination of the citizenship of the ascendant
of respondent.
A petition for quo warranto is not a means to achieve that purpose.
To rule on this issue in this quo warranto proceeding will not only be
a clear grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of
jurisdiction, but also a blatant violation of due process on the part of
the persons who will be affected or who are not parties in this case.