REPUBLIC of the PHILIPPINES, represented by

SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C. CALIDA, petitioner, vs.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO, respondent. G.R. No.
237428. May 11, 2018, EN BANC

Principle in sum:
No one is above the law and the Constitution, not even a Chief
Justice who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution
and obey the laws of the land. Inevitably, an appointee to the
position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court must be the
exemplar of honesty, probity and integrity.

FACTS:
1. November 1986 to June 1, 2006 - 20 years, respondent
served as a member of the faculty of the University of the
Philippines-College of Law (U.P. or U.P. College of Law)

2. October 2003 to 2006 - concurrently employed as legal

counsel of the Republic in two international arbitrations for
PIATCO cases but no SALNs were filed.

3. 1999-2009 - no SALN filed by respondent. U.P. HRDO

certified that there was no record on respondent's 201 file of
any permission to engage in limited practice of profession.
Her engagement as legal counsel for the Republic continued
until 2009.

4. July 2010 - respondent submitted her application for the

position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

5. 13 August 2010 - respondent was appointed by then

President Benigno C. Aquino III (President Aquino III) as
Associate Justice, and took oath on August 16, 2010.

6. 4 June 2012 - JBC agreed to require the applicants for the

Chief Justice position to submit all previous SALNs up to
December 31, 2011 for those in government service.

7. 23 July 2012 - Although the determination of whether a

candidate has substantially complied with the documentary
 requirements was delegated to the Execom, the latter could
not produce any minutes of the meeting or record that the
members thereof deliberated on the letter of respondent.

8. 24 August 2012 - respondent was appointed by then

President Aquino III as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the Court can assume jurisdiction and give due

course to the instant petition for quo warranto against
respondent who is an impeachable officer and against whom
an impeachment complaint has already been filed with the
House of Representatives;

SUPREME COURT’S RULING:

1. The Court has Jurisdiction over the instant Petition for Quo
Warranto. The petition challenges the respondent's right
and title to the position of Chief Justice. The Republic thus
prays that respondent's appointment as Chief Justice be
declared void. Respondent counters that, as an impeachable
officer, she may only be removed through impeachment by
the Senate sitting as an impeachment court.

While traditionally, the principle of transcendental

importance applies as an exception to the rule requiring
locus standi before the Courts can exercise its judicial power
of review, the same principle nevertheless, finds application
in this case as it is without doubt that the State maintains
an interest on the issue of the legality of the Chief Justice's
appointment.

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 a proceeding traditionally lodged in
the courts.
 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.

The term "quo warranto" is Latin for "by what authority."

Therefore, as the name suggests, quo warranto is a writ of inquiry.
It determines whether an individual has the legal right to hold the
public office he or she occupies. In review, Section 1, Rule 66 of the
Rules of Court provides: Action by Government against
individuals. — An action for the usurpation of a public office,
position or franchise may be commenced by a verified petition
brought in the name of the Republic of the Philippines 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; or
(c) An association which acts as a corporation within the
Philippines without being legally incorporated or without
lawful authority so to act.

Thus, a quo warranto proceeding is the proper legal

remedy to determine the right or title to the contested public office
or to oust the holder from its enjoyment. 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.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Quo Warranto is GRANTED.

Respondent Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno is found DISQUALIFIED
from and is hereby adjudged GUILTY of UNLAWFULLY
HOLDING and EXERCISING the OFFICE OF THE CHIEF
JUSTICE. Accordingly, Respondent Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno is
OUSTED and EXCLUDED therefrom.
xxx