REPUBLIC VS SERENO

GR NO. 237428, MAY 11, 2018

FACTS: The Republic through the Office of the Solicitor General initiated a quo
warranto proceeding against the Chief Justice Sereno on the basis of incomplete
presentation of her SALN. The writ of quo warranto aims to declare Sereno’s
appointment as void.
Sereno contends that an impeachable officer may only be removed through
impeachment, hence, no quo warranto proceedings are allowed.
ISSUE: Whether a chief justice may be a party to a quo warranto proceedings.
RULING: YES. A quo warranto proceeding is the proper legal remedy to determine a
person's right or title to a public office and to oust the holder from its enjoyment. It is the
proper action to inquire into a public officer's eligibility or the validity of his appointment.
Under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, a quo warranto proceeding involves a judicial
determination of the right to the use or exercise of the office.
In quo warranto proceedings referring to offices filled by appointment, what is
determined is the legality of the appointment. The title to a public office may not be
contested collaterally but only directly, by quo warranto proceedings.