RULE 66- Quo Warranto

What is an action for Quo Warranto?

An action for the usurpation of a public office, position on 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 public office,
position or franchise;
b) A public officer who does or suffers an act which, by the provisions of law,
constitutes a ground for the forfeiture of his office; or
c) An association which acts as corporation within the Philippines without being
legally incorporated or without lawful authority so to act;

Nature of Quo Warranto proceeding as a legal remedy:

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.

The action may be brought by the solicitor general or a public prosecutor or any
person claiming to be entitled to the public office or position usurped or unlawfully held
or exercised by another.

In order for a quo warranto proceeding to be successful, the person suing must
show that he or she has a clear right to the contested office or to use or exercise the
functions of the office allege1dly usurped or unlawfully held by respondent.

Distinction between quo warranto and mandamus

Quo Warranto is the remedy to try the right to an office or franchise and to oust
the holder from its enjoyment;
Mandamus only lies to enforce clear legal duties not to try disputed titles.

Distinction between quo warranto and election protest

An election protest proposes to oust the winning candidate from office. It is

strictly a contest between the defeated and winning candidate, based on the grounds
of electoral frauds and irregularities to determine who between them has actually
obtained the majority of the legal vote’s case cast and is entitled to hold the office. It
can only be filed by a candidate who has duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has
voted for in the preceding elections.

A special civil action for quo warranto refers to questions of disloyalty to the
state, or of ineligibility of the winning candidates. The objective of the action is to
unseat the ineligible person from the office, but not to install the petitioner in his place.
Any voter may initiate the action for quo warranto which is strictly speaking, not a
contest where the parties strive for supremacy because the petitioner will not be seated
if the respondent may be unseated.
1
Quo Warranto defined under the Omnibus Election Code

It refers to an electoral contest relating to the qualifications of an elective official

on the ground of ineligibility or disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines. The issue is
whether respondent possesses all the qualifications, and none of the qualifications
prescribed by law.

The Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881) provides for a petition for quo
warranto in election contest as follows:

Effect of filing a petition to annul or suspend the proclamation:

The filing with the Commission of a petition to annul or to suspend the

proclamation of any candidate shall suspend the running of the period within which to
file an election protest or quo warranto proceedings. (See 248, BP 881)

Petition for Quo Warranto

Any voter contesting the election of any member of the Batasang Pambansa,
regional, provincial, or city officer on the ground of ineligibility or of dishonesty to the
Republic of the Philippines shall file a sworn petition for quo warranto with Commission
within ten days after the proclamation of the results of the election.

Any voter contesting the election of any municipal or barangay officer on the
ground of ineligibility or of dishonesty to the Republic of the Philippines filed a sworn
petition for quo warranto with the RTC or MTC respectively, within ten days after the
proclamation of the results of the election.

Quo warranto against persons usurping an office in a private corporation:

Rule 66 is not applicable to quo warranto cases against person usurping an office
in a private corporation. (Calleja vs Pandang)

In consonance with RA No.8799, Section 5.2

Actions of quo warranto against persons who usurp an office in a corporation,

which were formerly cognizable by the Securities and Exchange Commission under PD
No.902-A is hereby transferred to the Court of General jurisdiction or the appropriate
Regional Trial Court: But this does not change the fact that Rule 66 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure does not apply to quo warranto cases against persons who usurp an
office in a private corporation.

The present Rule 66 only applies to actions in quo warranto against persons who
usurp a public office, position or franchise; public officers who forfeit their office;
associations, which act as corporations without being legally incorporated despite the
passage of RA 8799.

When commenced by the Solicitor General or public prosecutor:

2
 1. When directed by the President of the Philippines; or

2. When upon complaint or otherwise he has good reason to believe that any
case specified in the preceding section can be established by proof.

When commenced with the permission of the court

At the request and upon relation of another person, the Solicitor General or a
public prosecutor may, with the permission of the court in which the action is to be
commenced, bring such an action.

Requirement before commencing the action:

But in such a case the officer bringing it may first require an indemnity for the
expenses and costs of the action in an amount approved by and to be deposited in the
court by the person at whose request and upon whose relation the same is brought.

A relator is a person referred in Section 3 in relation to Section 4 of Rule 66 of the

Rules of Civil Procedure.

Relator is the legal term meaning a private person at whose relation or on whose
behalf an application for quo warranto or mandamus is filed. The relator as one
beneficially interested, but the action is maintained on his behalf.

In the exercise of sound discretion, the Solicitor General may suspend or turn
down the institution of an action for quo warranto where there are just and valid
reasons. (Gonzales vs Chavez, 205 SCRA 816)

Abandonment of a case by the Solicitor General, however, does not mean that
the Solicitor General may just drop it without any legal and valid reasons, for the
discretion given him is not unlimited. Its exercise must be not only within the parameter
set by law but with the best interest of the state as the ultimate goal.

When hearing had an application for permission to commence action:

When notice to be given to respondent

Upon application for permission to commence such action in accordance with the
next preceding section, the court shall direct that notice be given to the respondent so
that he may be heard in opposition thereto.

Effect if permission is granted

If permission is granted, the court shall issue an order to that effect copies of
which shall be served on all interested parties, and the petition shall then be filed within
the period ordered by the court. (Sec 4, Rule 66)

When an individual may commence such an action

3
 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)

The private person suing must show a clear right to the contested office.
(Topacio vs Ong, GR No 179895, December 18, 2005), and not even a mere preferential
right to be appointed thereto.

In Topacio vs Ong, while denominated as a petition for certiorari and

prohibition, the petition partakes of the nature of a quo warranto proceeding with
respect to Ong, for it effectively seeks to declare null and void his appointment as an
associate justice of the Sandiganbayan for being unconstitutional. While the petition
professes to be one of for certiorari and prohibition, petitioner even adverts to a “quo
warranto” aspect of the petition.

Being a collateral attack on a public officer’s title, the present petition for
certiorari and prohibition must be dismissed.

The title to a public office may not be contested except directly by quo warranto
proceedings; it cannot be assailed collaterally.

The court ruled that prohibition does not lie to inquire into the validity of the
appointment of public office.

For a quo warranto petition to be successful, the private person suing must show
a clear right to the contested office. A mere preferential right to be appointed thereto
can lend a modicum of legal ground to proceed with the action.

In the present case, petitioner presented no sufficient proof of a clear and

indubitable franchise to the office of an Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan. He in
fact concedes that he was never entitled to assume the office of an Associate Justice of
the Sandiganbayan.

Garcia vs Perez, 99 SCRA 628

Nothing is better settled then that a petitioner, in a quo warranto proceeding to

try title to a public office, must be able to show that he is entitled to said office. Absent
such an element, the petition must be dismissed.

No individual can bring a civil action relating to usurpation of a public office

without averring that he has a right to the same; and at any stage of the proceeding, if
it be shown that such individual has no right, the action may be dismissed because there
is no legal ground upon which it may proceed when the fundamental basis of such
action is destroyed.

One who does not claim to be entitled to the office allegedly usurped or
unlawfully held or exercised by another, but who merely asserts a right to be appointed
thereto cannot question the latter’s title to the same by quo waranto.

4
Effect when a plaintiff is not entitled to public office

In Feliciano vs Villasin, a quo warranto can be dismissed at any stage without any
averment or evidence to show that the plaintiff is entitled to disputed public office.

In an action for quo warranto to determine title to a public office, the complaint
to be sufficient in form must show that the plaintiff is entitled to the office. Without
such averment or evidence of such right the action may be dismissed at any stage.

Parties and Contents of Petition against usurpation

The parties in a quo warranto action are:

1. The persons who claim to be entitled to public office, position or franchise,

hereto, if any;

2. All persons who claim to be entitled to the public office, position or franchise.
(Sec 6 Rule 66)

Contents of the petition:

When the action is against a person for usurping a public office, position or
franchise, the petition shall set forth:

a. The name of the person claim to be entitled thereto, if any;

b. 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 right to such public office, position
or franchise determined in the same action. (Sec 6, Rule 66)

Usurpation-defined

Usurpation generally refers to unauthorized arbitrary assumption and exercise of

power by one without color of title or who is not allowed by law thereto:

VENUE: Where to file a quo warranto action:

1. Supreme Court;

2. Court of Appeals; or

3. Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area where the
respondent or any of the respondents resides (not in the place where the
petitioner resides)

But 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.

JURISDICTION on quo warranto cases:

5
 a.) Supreme Court- Section 5 (1) Art VIII of the 1987 Constitution.

SC original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public

ministeries and consuls, and over petition for certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus.

b.) Court of Appeals- Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Sec 9)

(1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari,

habeas corpus and quo warranto and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or
not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.

c.) Regional Trial Court (sec.21)

RTC shall exercise original jurisdiction

(1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,

habeas corpus and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their
respective regions.

d.) Sandiganbayan- shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for
the issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus,
injunctions and other auxcialliary writs and processes in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto, arising
or that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed under Executive Order
Nos 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986; Provided, that the jurisdiction over these
petitions shall not be exclusive of the Supreme Court (Sec 4 PD 1606 as
amended by RA 8249).

Filing of petition for quo warranto is subject to hierarchy of courts; (Mendoza vs Villas)

While the SC, CA and RTC have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs xxx quo
warranto to such concurrence is not unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum.

Period for Pleading and proceeding may be reduced; action given precedence;

The court may reduce the period provided by the Rules for filing pleading 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 among other civil matter pending in court.

Judgment when usurpation found:

Judgment shall be rendered when the respondent is found guilty of usurping into,
intruding into or unlawfully holding or exercising a public office, position on franchise.

Effect of the judgment:

Such respondent be ousted and altogether excluded therefrom, and that the
petitioner or relation as the case may be, recover his costs. Such further judgment may

6
be rendered determining the respective rights in and to the public office, position or
franchise of all the parties to the action as justice requires.

Judgment in quo warranto does not bind successor in office

Rights of persons entitled to public office:

If the judgment in favor of the persons 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.

a. Take upon himself the execution of the office and may immediately thereafter
demand of the respondent all the books and papers in the respondents’ custody
or control appertaining to the office to which the judgment relates.
b. The person adjudged entitled to the office may also bring action against the
respondent to recover the damages sustained by such person by reason of
usurpation.

Prescriptive period to file petition for quo warranto: (Madrigal vs Lecaroz) a petition for
quo warranto and mandamus affecting titles to public office must be filed within one (1)
year from the date the petitioner was ousted from his positions and this one (1) year
period is not interrupted by the prosecution of any administrative remedy.

It is fundamental that in a case where pure questions of law are raised, the
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies cannot apply because issues of law
cannot be resolved with finality by the administrative officer. Appeal to the
administering office of orders involving questions of law would be an exercise in futility.
In the present case, only a legal question is to be resolved that is whether or not the
obligation of Madrigal’s position was in accordance with law.

The fatal drawback of Madrigal’s cause is that he came to court out of time. It
was only after four (4) years and twenty (20) days from the abolition of his position
that he filed the petition for mandamus and damages.

Prescriptive period of quo warranto under Omnibus Election Code

Effect of filing to annul or to suspend the proclamation:

The filing with the COMELEC a petition to annul or to suspend the proclamation of any
candidates shall suspend the running of the period within which to file an election
protest or quo warranto proceedings. (Sec 248 BP 881 Omnibus Election Code)

Petition for quo warranto. Any voter contesting the election of any member of the
Batas Pambansa, regional, provincial, or city officer on the ground intelligibility or of
disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines shall file a sworn petition for quo warranto
with the COMISSION within TEN (10) days after the proclamation of the results of the
election.

7
 Any voter contesting the elction of any municipal or barangay officer on the gorund of
ineligibility or disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines shall file a sworn petition for
quo warranto with the RTC or Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Court, respectively
within ten (10) days after the proclamation of the results of the election (Section 253
BP 8/81)

As a general rule, administrative remedy does not abate the period for quo warranto
(TORRES vs QUINTOS 88 Phil 436; Galano vs Roxas, 67SCRA 8)

Exception to the statute of limitation to file quop warranto (Cristobal vs Melchor)

The SC applying the principly of equity, need not be bound to a rigid application
of law, but rather it should conform to the condition or exigencies to a given problem
or situation in order to grant a relief that will serve the ends of justice.