POST MIDTERMS oar SECTION 1, helon by Govranent Rant nda ~ haat for the mua au pb caput stro ay bacon tha sed pan usin ue othe Ropae othe Pes ° (@) A person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or eens pbk oe pation crane (o) Rpubte oe in oc of salsa et wih bythe rvson tilon connor s gear fre foarte fig (@ Sn vcore at certo nt te Pipes ‘tou bung galore or ou ew eathrty ooo ie) ‘SECTION 2. When Solicitor General or Public Prosecutor Must Commence ‘ction. ~ The Solicitor General ora pubic prosecutor, when directed by the President of the Pippin, or when upon complaint or otherwise Me has good reason to believe that ary case spectfed in the preceding Section canbe established by proof, must commence such action (3a) ‘SECTION 2. When Solicitor General or Public Prosecutor May Commence Action with Permission of Court. ~ The Sobcitor General or a public prosecutor may, wih the permission of the court in wich the action is to bbe commenced bring such an action atthe request and upon the relation of another person, but in uch case the officer bringing ita frst require an indemnity forthe expenses and costs of the action in an amount approved by and to be depasited in the court by the person at whose request and upon whose relation the same is brought. (42) SECTION 4. When hesring Had On. Application for Permission to ‘Commence Acton. ~ Upon application for permission to commence such acton in accordance with the nex preceding section, the cout shal dct that notice be gven to the respondent so that he may be heard in ‘poston thereto; and f permission is granted, the court shall issue an frder to that effect, copies of which shall be served on all intrested Parties, and the petition shall then be fied within the period ordered bythe court (6a) SECTION 5. When An Individual May Commence Such An Action. ~ A person claiming to be entitled to a public office or postion usurped or Unlawfuly held or exercised by another may bring an action therefor in his ‘own name. (6) ‘SECTION 6, Parties and Content of Petition Against Usurpation.~ When the action is againt a person for usurping @ public offee, postion or franchise the petition shall et forth the name af the person who claims to be entiled thereto, if any, with an averment of his ght to the same and that the respondent is unlawfully in possession thereot All persons who claim to be entitled tothe pubic office, postion or franchise may be made parties, and their respective rights to such public office, position or franchise determined, inthe same action (7a) ‘SECTION 7. Venue ~ An action under the preceding six sections can be brought ony inthe Supreme Court the Court of Appeals, rin the Regional Tial Court exercising jurisdiction over the temtoial area where the respondent or any of the respondents resides, but when the Solicitor General commences the action, it may be brought in a Regional Teal Court in the City of Manian the Court of Appeals, ar inthe Supreme Court. (Sa) SECTION 8. Period for Pleadings and Proceedings May Be Reduced; ‘Action Given Precedence. ~ The court may reduce the perlod provided by these Rules for filing pleadings and for al ether proceedings inthe action in order to secure the most expeditious determination of the matters inwolved therein consistent with the rights of the parties. Such action may be given precedence over anyother cil mater pending inthe cout. (92) ‘SECTION 9. Judgment Where Usurpation Found. ~ When the respondent ‘= found guity of usurping, intruding ino, or uniawfuly holding or exercising 3 public offs, poston or franchise, judgment shal be rendered that auch respondent be ousted and altogether excluded thereftom, and that the ptitoner or relator a6 the ease may be, recover his coste, Such further judgment may be rendered determining the respective rights in and to the public office, postion of fanchise of al the parties tothe ation a= justice requires. (10a) SECTION 10. Rights of Persons Adludged Entitled to Public Office: Delivery of Books and Papers; Damages. ~ if judgment be rendered in favor of the person averted inthe complaint to be ented to the public office he may, afer taking the oath of office and executing any oficial bond required by law, take upon himself the execution of the offee, and ‘may immediately thereafter demand of the respondent al the Boks andpapers in the respondents custody of control appertaining tothe officeto lihich the judgment relates. I the respondent refuses or neglects to delve any book or paper pursuant to such demand, he may be punished for Contempt as having disobeyed a lawful order of the court. The person adjudged entiled to the offce may also bring action against the respondent to recover the damages sustained by such person by reason of the usurpation (15a) SECTION 11. Limitations. ~ Nothing contained in this Rule shall be construed to authorize an action against a public officer or employee for his ouster from office unless the same be commenced within ane (1) year after the cause of such ouster, or the right ofthe petitoner to hold such lfice or position arose; nor to authorize an action for damages in fccordance withthe provisions of the next preceding section unless the same be commenced within one (1) year after the entry ofthe judgment establishing the petitioner’ right tothe offcen question (16a) SECTION 12. Judgment for Costs. ~ In an action brought in accordance withthe provisions ofthis Rule, the court may render judgment for costs ‘against ether the petitioner, the relator or the respondent, or the person or persons claiming to be 2 corporation, or may apportion the costs, 35, ustice requires. (172) ‘Te postion of SC justice, much more a CJ, is a immune from any other provision of the Constitution as well as the law for the removal EXCEPT impeachment, These are refered to as impeachable officials Yet during time of Corona this rule wae not utilized, The OSG might not be aware of ts potential use because CJ Corona had ta go though the iors and pain of impeachment for 2 yeas. Yet somehow the legislature did not want to go through such proceeding for the second time inthe case of Cd Sereno, The SG was wise enough to fll back on R66 as a potential ool 12 abbreviate the proceedings ar impeachment which could have dragged on ‘again for at least a year, While impeachment proceedings were ongoing, SG Calida on behalf of RP instituted QW before the SC against CJ Sereno. The outcome is now part af legal history and has even somehow emphasized the significance of RE, 66 then as been highlighted and could be a potent tool that may be used to remove an official who could be removed by way of impeachment Impeachable officals (Pres, VP Pres of Senate, Speaker of House, SC Justices) may not be removed simply by oF through impeachment proceedings. This time, they could be held lable under R66 which is QW. What is QW? By what eght sa particular officer occupying a particular public Position. If you institute @ petition for QW its as if you are assaling the tentlement or right of Public officer to accuny pubic postion, We have R66 in ROC. Section 1 provides the particular positions or posts or persons against whom {QW petition may be brought against. If the Qis against whom the action of (QW? Section 1 provides forthe answer: 1 Aperson who usups intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public ofc, position or franchise; ‘A usurper is someone who occupies positions without any Fight thereto, When you flea QW against that person its as if you are saying by what right are you occupying the position. Re up to the court before which the petition is fied to Cetermine f indeed a person is simply 3 usurper in case he wil be QUSTED. A usurper will be OUSTED after the proceedings on QW 2. A public oficer who does or suffers an act which, by the provision of lan constttes a ground for the forfeiture of his office: or ‘Note in the fist category which is paragraph a “a person who usurps" means ffor the get go the person has no required eligibility or qualification and precisely this was hat was used by SG to question the ilgiilty ofthe CJ Under the Constitution we have 3 qualifications fr someone vo wishes o occupy 2juicial poston in ths case SC: iL Natural born citizen of PH (emphasized in case of J (ng of the SB + he wae already appointed to SC from S8 but Sen. Salonga questioned his eligility by QW saying he was nota natural bor Flpine. Tis is what was found by the SC. He was not allowed to ‘occupy his post in SC. While he remained in $8 sincebhe was appointed SB justice for several years, there was this ingeing Q about his quaifcation since $8 Justices are supposed to also be natural bom ctizens) |i Atleast 40 years of age at time of appointment Ti, Practcing aw forat least 15 years Sereno qualified/complied with these requirements. But besides the requirements under the Constitution, the JBC from time to time adds certain requirements or fone has to become a lawyer: good moral character and without violating any lw In other words, comply wih your lawyer's oath all the time. For Sereno they said she violated the requirement of submiting SALN which she filed for several years. There were instances she complied, but some years they coulda find her SALN inthe public records. With that, SC found her not eligible from the begining. That's the essence of QW. Under eategory adi not qualify fom stary hence usurper b. In second ground, officer intially qualified but during the ‘couree committed an act which rested in forfeiture such as committed a crime or gross dishonesty which resulted in forfeiture 3. An association which acts as a corporation within the Philippines without being legally incorporated or without lawl authority soto 1. A corporation de facto which did not comply with al the requirements under the Corporation Code could be stripped offits legal personality by way of petition of QW b. Association which acts asa corporation in PH without being legally incorporated If asked if QW is applicable, you determin fhe individuals fall under any of these categories and if QW applicable to strip them off their oficial functions and authortes. ‘These are the individuals who may be eld accountable ina QW petition. ‘The appropriate official or person who has legal personality to pursue a peiition for QW -+ The SG or public prosecutor who may be designated by SG to intiate the proceedings (Section 3) ‘86 under the name ofthe Republic of PH may inate QW proceedings under hat situations can the SG inate QW proceedings? Under Section 3 1. if irected by the President of PH 2. The SG may also motu proprio (on his ovn) inate the pation himself fhe finds probable cause to institute the sare. 3. Upon request of private individual whe has the evidence in order to sustain the petition fr QW If asked under what circumstances SO may initiate QW proceeding? The instances above. ‘There are instances when an individual may initiate QW proceeding when he bloves that heis entitled to the petition and the petition itself must set out leatly under what instance or by what right that private individual is ‘supposed tobe ented tothe position which is presently being occupied by another person, ‘fhe petition intated by private individual, take note the requirements: 1 Upon the private individual to show by what right he sented tothe position; and 2. Timeliness — The petition by private individual should be within 1 year under Section 11 ‘Which provides thatthe pettion of QW must be fle within 1 year from the time its cause or from the time that the Detitoner or private individual who instr the postion was removed from the post which he claims tobe ented, ‘What should be the contents ofthe petition? Section 6 1. Name of the person who claim to be entitled and the particular position which he e aiming for; 2. The explanation or justiation why the petitioner is entitled tothe positionThe argument to justly the ouster as well a5. the reinstatement if that isthe casei removed, or installation if {an entry postion forthe petitioner b. tsa discussion in length as wel a arguments to support petitioners right 3. To show that the person presently occupying is NOT entitle tothe post. Venue -+ Section 7. Where i the venue for QW petition? 1. The RTC 2. This is more of ajurisdiction. Which court has justin? It excludes MTC if the petition incidentally is under the Omnibus Election Code which is aimed at ascoling the ‘qualfiaton, credential and eligibility of a candidate for a political pos. Distinguish QW under ROC and Omnibus Election ‘cade which is limited to ELECTIVE PUBLIC officials, Meaning, President, VP dow to barangay level jk Whereas under ROC the MTC ar MTCC does not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of QW petition but under Omnibus election code the MTC has Jurisdiction to take cognizance of QW involving barangay oficial. But with respect to mayoraty postions and vice mayer, Sanggunian and Congressmen it willbe RTC appealable 1 CA to SC But if under R66 the jurisdiction lies with ether: If petitioner goes upto SC, cannot faut petitioner because as seen under Section it appears tobe concurent jurisdiction, it will depend on signitcance of issues involved, position, Urgency or of transcendental importance SC feels the petition is not appropiate on its level, the SC cannot dismiss on bass of lack of jurisdiction, but remand to the appropriate court depending onthe nature (either RTC oF ca) fut there is here 2 particular phrase under Section 7 Regional Trial Court exercising juisdiction over the teritoial rea_where the respondent or any of the respondents resides” RTC has juisdtion by venue is determined by the residence of any ofthe respondents, ffs an ORDINARY cil action, the venue forthe petition ‘would usually be the place where the plaintiff resides. But in (QW under R66 its where the respondent or any of the respondents reside It depends on the issue, urgency and franscendental issue involved it could be RTC, CA or SC Prescriptive Period IF under OEC: fling petition to question elighilty, qualification or credential shal be within 10 days from proclamation ‘The significance of of date of proclamation Ifthe positon isin a particular area, the losing candidates try their best to delay proclamation because that's when the petiod to flea possible petition for QW stats whichis avery short period once there is proclamation. Lawyers of losing candidates will ry 10 delay the counting. The winning Candidate would try his/her best at ll costs to have himvher proclaimed by COMELEC official because that would tigger the 10 day petod of OW, if possible Under R66: within 1 year after the cause of such ouster, or the right ofthe pettioner told auch office position, arose Rule 66 occ ‘Any public ofcial Limited o elective publi official No MTo/MTCC. MTCIMTCC: bay officials PP win ty win 10d fom proclamationSection 9 and 10 ‘Consequences: possible outcome of what would the RTC/CA/SC hhow would they act if there is a positive finding that a particular petson/offiial is not entitled to the post involved or if the ‘sociation acting as a corporation isnot incorporated according to law + answer in See. 9 and 10 Respondent wil be ousted and exch from the post Petitioner will be installed or if removed, restored to the postion Restitution with respect to cost and damages If the private indvcual who acted as pttioner and petition found impressed with merit and entles to damages but not specifically set out in judgment, under Section 11, the peiitioner has 1 year from finality of judgment to recover possible damages brought upon him by his temoval or from his being stalled from occupying the poston. Note: Section 9 and 10 provides forthe contents of the decision where the court finde the petition meritorious, ‘ese ae the dispositions. These are what you should find in the dispositive postion granting QW. I there is no meri the court wil demise, Incidentally, a QW is one of those prerogative writs being issued bythe court. The courts are very strict with respect to the requirements. The cours ae so stringent with their adherence. Ifthe court finds the petition suffers from infirmity, t can dismiss the patton at any stage. Its NOT a right for a particular party to institute UNLESS he/she is ented Even Solictor General should see to it that the |ustifeations being espoused are clearly meritorious Court may motu proprio dismiss petition even without requiring respondent to flea comment But courts are also careful in disposing Quo Waranto petitions so it may, in exercise of sound discretion ‘and substantial justice so as to allow the ventilation fof ‘issues involve, to require comment before Aismissal at fst glance (prima faci) on its face lacks merit, + Pototve.Bagno This is a quo warranto proceeding instituted by a prewar justice of the peace whose positon wat filed by the appointment and confrration of the respondent after liberation. ‘Te fact bring this case within the authority of Lue Floresca ve. Amparo ‘Quetio, supra, p. 128 and Domingo Maddumba vs. Roman Ozaeta, supra, . 245, Peioners acceptance of oer public offices incompatie with udicial function operate as an abandonment of the postion to which he ‘seeks reinstatement. It remains the petitioner was appointed justice of the peace for the ‘municipality of Pilar, Province of Cebu, in November, 1933. He had held that office unl Api 25, 1944 (Exhibits 1 and 2), when he ceased to act for reasons not disclosed inthe recor, On August 19,1945, the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace of San Francisco, Poro and Tudela, Vicente de Roda, was extended fo comprige the municipalty of Par Exhisits 3.4, and 5), Vicente de Roda was later succeeded by Felberto R.Sosmefia, who was justice of the peace unt April 14,1946, From the latter date September 1, 1946, the office of justice ofthe peace of Pilar was vacant. It ‘was on the last mentionea date thatthe respondent entered upon the performance of his duties in that office. Petitioner joined the police force ofthe City of Cebu as feutenant from June 11,1947, to January 15, 1948 From January 16, 1948, to Apri 28 of the same year, he was Assistant Provincial Warden (Exhibits A, 8, and ©) ‘That petitioner was forced to seek or accep jobs inorder t ive would not ater the case even if we assume, forthe sake of argument, that economic necessity was a vald plea The government was not the only source of (gainful employments that could have tide him over while wang, a5 he 597s, for reappointment to his old position, The truth is that for almost two years after iberation, before he accepted other government postions, he Got position was without any permanent incumbent, he didnot enter public Service, and he did not rise a finger to claim his judicial post. It would teem that he lost al interest in the same unt he changed his mind or found hehadis dismissed with costs The petition is damissed with costsDOCTRINE: Petitioners acceptance of other public offices incompatible inith ude function operate as an abandonment ofthe position which he seek reinstatement. ‘You are not entitled to a position hat you abandoned. Abandonment is what can work against a petition of QW. 2 Abaya vs.Alvear ‘Abaya was appointed to the post of justice ofthe peace of the towns of Cervantes, Angak, Concepcion and San Emilio, all Provinces of Ilcas Su. When the Japanste occupied the Philippines, he was force to abandon his post. After liberation, he was again appointed to the post, but the Commission of “Appointments cid not. approve this appointment Presumably because of ‘this nonapproval by the COA, Alvear” was appointed in Abaya’s stead. Abaya instituted quo warranto proceedings. ‘The SC rules in Abaya’ favor, cing the case of Teves, recently decided by the Scand on point with Abaya’ case, ISSUE: WIN Abaya ad lot his right, tte, or valid claim tothe position of justice of the peace of Cervantes and Angak by reason of abandonment, ‘consisting inhi acceptance of the postion of justice of peace only during the Japanese Occupation? (NO, there was no intention to abandon) HELD: Because of the abnormal conditions obtaining in locos Su particulary the tovins of Cervantes and Angaki during the war, thre is Feason to believe that the changing of the orignal circuit eccupied by ‘Abaya by eliminating therefom the town of Angak, wes a mere temporary texpecient to meet the exigencies of the administration of justice in that fare, under abnormal conditions, and tht his acceptance of the new post {id nat involve or entail abandonment of his old postion. The doctrine laid {dwn in the case of Teves ve. Sinciong. it ie significant to note that when said old circuit was restored the peiitioner was likewise restored to his old post by appointments extended by two administrations, that of President Osmena and the administration of President Roxas [Abaya had to take the other postions as they came, accepting the positon of justice of the pesoe of Cervantes alone during the occupation and focepting @ new appointment to his old creut during the days following the liberation. He hadno freedom of choice, ‘Te important thing is that he never intended to abandon his od past ang all along during the Japanese cccupaton and even after ibertion he Continued in the judicial service and exercised and discharged the functions ofthe office of justice ofthe peace inthe same place and area \ihich he di before the war. Though his subsequent appointment was not Confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, was unnecessary that it Gid nat and could not add anything to or diminish his right tothe office conferred by his eeginal appointment, but that said appointments may be regarded as a mere restitution of the office which belonged to him but ‘bic he flied fo hold because of, nd during the war DOCTRINE: in Teves v. Sindiong we held that because ofthe abnormal Conditions ebtining in Negros Oriental by reason ofthe war the formation ff new judicial cicuts including Luzuriaga ~ fist, the grouping of Luzurriaga and Bacong, and later the merger of the three towne of Lzuriaga, Bacong and Dauin, into a eicut ~ was a. makeshift arrangement, a mere temporary expedient far from being permanent in ature, but merely designed to meet and solve the exgencies of the ‘administration of ustice in those areas inthe best manner possible under Said abnormal conditions; that the law and doctrines governing abandonment of an office may not and should not be strictly applied to ‘cases occurring during the war. ‘A subsequent appointment tothe post of justice ofthe peace extended to fone who already had a right to it because of a previous prewar ‘appointment under which he had qualifed and discharged his duties, may be regarded as a mere restitution of restoration of the postion which belonged to him; and thatthe new appointment can add nothing to or iminish his ight othe office conterted id he accept any petition before he filed a petition of QW? Yes same postions of aficer of peace He had this appointment but CoA didnot affirm it was akin to mandamus, QW was applied for the petition that was alteady occupied SSC said instead of abandonment he was being cestored to his position Ihe abandoned he will not qualifynot abandon he wl ust be restituted to his former position 3. Teves ve.Sindiong Pablo Teves was appointed Justice of the Peace of Luzuriaga, Negros Oriental He qualified for and assumed said office on January 14,1915, and had since decharged the dties of said office up to the outbreak ofthe Pacific war in December 1941. The plant flowed and stayed withthe (uerrilas in the fee area and continued to ciacharge his duties as Justice Of the Peace of that part of Luzuriaga not occupied by the invaders However, sometime in October 1943, the plinff was arested by a Japanese patrol and was later taken down to Dumaguete, capital of ‘Negros Oriental and there kept a virtual rioner Pablo Teves managed to escape from his confinement in Dumaguete, went to the fee area of Lzuriaga, and asked the Deputy Governor under the gurrila Goveroment to restore him to his post of Justice ofthe Peace of Luzuriaga.On May 1. 1945, Teves. was again appointed acting Justice of the Peace of Luzuriaga, Bacong and Oauin. However, when his appointment was submitted to the Commission on Appointments, it was not confirmed, Despite this non-confrmation, plant Teves continued i office. Inthe meantime, and presumably because of this nonconfrmation of Teves! Sppointment, the President of the Philippines nominated defendant Perpetuo A. Sinidiong ae Justice of the Peace of Luzuriaga, and said nomination was confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. The Tal (Court hla that Teves had abandoned his old ofce of Justice ofthe Peace of Luzuriaga alone. ISSUE: WON Teves is entitled to the Office of Justice of the Peace of Luzuriaga? ~ YES HELD: The SC held that the appellant hersin is stil below the age of Seventy, and none of the other factors or elements justiying lose ef, oF Separation from, his office as Justice of the Peace of Luzuriga, exists with the possible exception of that of abandonment. The conditions ‘obtaining tthe time were fr from normal. seems that the town proper Of Luzuriaga was occupied by the Japanese forces. Instead of rendering service ta oF cooperating with, these military occupants and continuing to Sere as Justice of the Peace ofthe town proper under them, Teves joined the guerillas in the mountains and continued to exercise his judicial functions and administer justice in the free area of Luzuriaga under the aegis of the government maintained by the Flipino forces, until he was frested by the Japanese coiier and confined In Oumaguete. The law and the doctrines governing abandonment ofan office may not and should fot be too sirctly applied to eases occuring during war especially in those areas occupied party or entirely by the enemy. Considering all the fercumstances surrounding this case, we beliew and hold that in fccepting the post of Justice ofthe Peace of Luzuriaga and Bacong and later the office of Justice of the Peace of Luzuriaga, Bacong and Daun the appelant herein didnot abandon his post af Justice of the Peace of Luzuiaga. One cannot propery be appointed to the same post that he is already holding under a valid appointment. Incidental, it may even Possibly be maintained, and not without reason, that thelast appomtment for the post of Justice ofthe Pesce of Luzuriaga in December 1945, was invalid for the adctional reason thatthe President could not extend an ‘ppointment to one who, under anew appointment isnot duly qualified DOCTRINE: An appointment tothe post of Justice of the Peace extended to one who had a right to t because of a previous prewar appohntment Under which he had qualifed and discharged his duties, may be regarded {352 mere restitution a restoration ofthe position which belonged to him: land thatthe new appointment can add nathing to or dinish fis ight the ofce conerted by his ginal appointment At the time Teves was requesting Sindiong to yield, was Teves ‘ccupying another positon? Yes justice of peace of Bacong and Dauin ‘Why would he stil want the position being occupied at that te by Sindiong? Because he was italy appointed as Justice of Peace prior to outbreak of Pacific War Did he not accept other positions such as Potot? There was an outbreak ofthe war 2a he didnt abandon on his own wl but because of the peculiar situation beyond hs conto. He could not have vied forthe postion since under ocupation ofthe Japanese government. 4. Serafin ve. Cruz Father Vitorna Lopez, Parish Priest of Quitgua, Bulacan fled withthe provincial board of Bulacen, administrative charges againet the appellee herein, Simplicio Serafin, in his capacity as chit of police ofthe aforesaid ‘municipality of Quingua, Bulacan, fr negligence inthe performance of his Guties. The municipal council after conducting an investigation, ‘exonerated Serafin. Father Lopez appealed tothe provincial council whichordered Serafin dismissed from service then appointed Justo Cruz a the new chief of police ofthe municpaly of Qungus. Serafin filed a motion for reconsideration which the new provincial board (granted. It exonerated Serafin and ordered the immediate reinstatement of the sd appellee in the ofce of chief of police of the munieipalty of uigua However in @ communication addressed tothe aforesaid provincial board the said municipal president informed the latter that he Mod already permanently appointed another in place ofthe dismissed chie of plice. ‘Te purpose of the present appeal is to have Cruz expelled from the ofce Of chief of police af the municipality of Quhgua and the for Serafin to be reinstates. ISSUE: W/Na duly appointed and qualified chief of municipal police may be Alsmisced therefrom inorder to reinstate another who had been dismissed from such office pursuant oa legal, valid and conclusive decision NO HELD: Inthe case at ba, Justo C. Cruz was permanently appointed chit of police of Quingua by the president of the said municipality, to fill the Vacancy created by the dismissal ftom said office of the herein Plaintiff appellee, as ordered by the provincial board of Bulacan after the hecessary proceedings provided by la He has acquired 2 vested right in the office and cannot be removed nor ismissed therefrom except for any of the causes designated and in accordance withthe proceedings established by lav. ‘Sec, 2272 of the Admin Code states that members of the municipal police shall not be removed and, except in cases of resignation, shall not be Gischarged from the service, except for misconduct of Incompetency, dishonesty, disloyalty to the United States or Philippine Government, Serious iegulaites in the performance of ther duties, and violation of law oF duty. The reinstatement of the dismissed ofcial isnot one ofthe causes designated by the law for the removal thereffom of one who has been permanently appointed to substitute the former In view ofthe foregoing considerations, we are ofthe opinion and so hold that the extraordinary legal remedy of quo warranto does not ie againt 3 {duly and legally appointed chet of municipal poice who has duly qualified for and has entered upon the performance of his duties, in order to reinstate another who has been legally dismissed from the office in (question DOCTRINE: The extraordinary legal remedy of quo warranto does net le against a duly and legally appointed chief of municipal plice who has duy {ual for and has entered upon the performance of his duties, moder to reinstate another who has been legaly dismissed from the sad office Extraordinary lagal remedies other terms for privilge writ. ts an extraordinary legal remedy avaliable only to address a clear legal right in favor of another person “The petition is supposed to be asking the respondents by what right Is hse occupying the post and therefore comment/answer should |usty entitlement ta remain as an occupant ofthe post. Otherwise, ‘there willbe an ouster. \What is the implication of being removed? As ifthe ofce was never occupied by qualified EE. The aim isto show the person not qualified from the begining under par. A ‘There is doctine of OPERATIVE FACT ~ even if» person never qualified but there are actions taken officially which cannot be undone otherwise grave inustice wil result If presented with a problem where one wll be ousted on OW peiition what would then be effect of his official acts if he never qualified 5. Lacson ve Romero et In July 25, 1946, the Petitioner, Antonio Lacson, was appointed by the President as provincial fiscal of Negros Onental which was affrmed by ‘Commission on Appointment. He took the offce and, thereafter performed his duties. In May 17, 1949, upon recommendation by Secretary of Justice, the President nominsted him to the post of provincial fiscal in Tariac and, simultaneously, the President nominated the Respondent, Honor Romero, to his postion as provincial fiscal of Negros Oriental. Both of them were confrmed by the Commission an Appointment. The Petitioner nether accepted the appointment nor assumed the office of fiscal of Tarlac but respondent Romero took his oath of office ofthe post of fiscal of Negros Orlental notified the Soleitr General and, thereafter proceeded to hie station. Commotion stated between the partis as both of them‘appeared inthe hearings of Judge Narvasa and Judge Ocampo were the latter judges favors the Respondent. When the Petiioner requested payment for his salary as provincial fiscal of Negros Oriental was turned own and instead paid Respondent Romero ISSUE: W/N Whether or not the confirmation Commission on Appointment alone, without the acceptance of the nomination by the Petitioner, can treat a vacancy inthe post of provincial fiscal of Negro Oriental? NO HELD: The SC held thatthe appointment to @ government post ike that of provincial fiscal to be complete involves several steps. Fst, comes the Fomination by the President. Then to make that nomination vad and permanent, the Commission on Appointments of the Legislature has to ont said nomination. The last step isthe acceptance thereof by the appointee by his assumption of office. The frst two steps, nomination and Confirmation, constitute a mere offer of a post. They are acts of the Executive and Legislative departments of the Government. But the last necessary step to make the appointment complete and effective rests Solely with the appointee himae. He may or he may not accept the appointment or nomination. [As held in the case of Borromeo ve, Matano, “there is no Power inthis ‘ourtry which can compel a man to accept an office" Consequenty, since Lieson has decined to accept he appointment as provincial figcal of Tarlac and no one can compel him to do s0, then he continues as provincial fiscal of Negios Onental and no vacancy in said office was treated, unless Lacson had been lawfully removed as Such fiscal of Negros Oriental DOCTRINE: The fist two steps, nomination and confirmation, constitute a mere offer of a post. They are acts of the Executive and Legislative ‘departments of the Government. ut the last neceseary step to make the ‘appointment compete and effective rests solely with the appointee himself. He may or fe may not accept the appoiniment or nomination. No officer or employee in the civil service shall be removed or suspended texcept for eause as provided by law. ‘SC: Potice was behind the transfer of fiscal lacson from tala to Tatlac which he did not accept Ione is appointed toa particular position, even in Labor Code where you did not wish to be as it wil amount to great sacrifice tantamount fo constructive demise Quo warranto si proper to unseat against an official who has occupied a seat where there ina vacancy 6. Acosta valor ‘Acosta fled a case allging that ae a result of the Ose. 1903 municipal elections in Laoag, locos Norte, he was elected by a mart of 100 votes. Notwithstanding this fact, Flor usurped the afce and unlawfully held the same, He prays that judgment be entered against Flr excluding him from the exerige of such ofcs and thet Acosta be declared fa be ent to the same. Thelower court ruled against Acosta. Hence, this action ISSUE: W/N Acosta can maintain an action for the purpose of excluding Flor from the exercise of said ofice on account of ilegaitee alleged fo hhave been committed in the elections? ~ NO HELD: The SC held thatthe law has reserved tothe Attorney General and to the provincial sca, as the case may be, the ght to bring such action, land in but one case does the law authorize an individual to bring such an {ction to wit when that person claims to have the right tothe exercise of the office unlawfully held and exercised by another. Aside from this ease fn individual cannot maintain such action. The aw nou opinion, does not allow of any other construction. if an individual, whether o not he has the Fight to the office alleged to have been uourped by anther were to be permitted to maintain such an action, it would serve no purpose and Section 201 would be evidently superfiuous. Kt would be a useless and redundant provision ofthe code DOCTRINE: No individual can bring a civil action relating tothe usurpation Of public office without averting that he has aright to the same; and at any stage ofthe proceedings, if tbe shown that such individual has no ‘uh right, the action may be dismissed because thee is no legal ground Upon which it may proceed when the fundamental bass of such action is Gestroyedasis the case here(Can private individual inate by himself a petition of QW? Yes Section 4 “This was decided in 1905 but inthe eurent year this would be under (OEC. The ruling here is thatthe petitioner failed to substantiate his tentlement to postion. He even doubted (petition) having wan in the elections Be alert to interpose objections ifthe anawer is fatal to your cient No showing of entitlement thus QW not availing 7. Garcia ve. Peres position of Senior Clerk in the Fiscal Management and Budget Division, Court of Appeals, which receives a higher salary than Garcia's position Garcia fled a protest with the CSC against Perez’ appointment on the ground that she was next in rank, better qualified and entitled to referential appointment tothe poston. CSC denied this. MR also denied, Garcia fed quo warrant case, which was aleo denied by the court a quo, MA denied ISSUE: W/N Garcia has the right to bring quo warranto proceeding ‘questioning the legality ofthe appointment of Perez ~ NO HELD: The Supreme Court dismissed the quo warrant petition. A petitioner, in a quo warranto proceeding to ty/assal ile toa public offce, must be able {0 show that he is ened 10 said office. Absent such an element, the pelition must be dismissed. In Cuyegkeng case, the SC held that one who foes not claim to be enttled tothe office allegedly usurped or unlawfully held or exerciaed by another but who ‘merely asserts a right to be appointed” thereto, cannot question the latter's ttle to the same by quo Wwarranto. In other words, one whose claim is predicated solely upon 2 more of less remoted possibiliy, that he may be the recipient of the ‘appointment, has no caube of action aginst the offic holder. DOCTRINE: A petitioner in a quo warranto proceeding to ty/assaltieto 3 public offee, must be able to show that he is enttledo sai affce, ‘By being next in rank is that enough justification tobe entitled tothe position? No SC said by claiming that because you're next in rank does not mean you ae automatically ented Perezhad a wrong notion just because CSC had a decision ont But thi provision on ROC on prescription should be reckoned from time cause of action arises regardless of whether or not any government agency before whom a petition is pending diy dally in resolving case Aslong as @parcular applicant meets minimum requirements, there can be no question that he/she enjoys the trust and confidence of ‘that appointing official The argument of next in rank (though desirable), the prerogative of appointing ofcias justies another person tobe appointed, Prerogative of appointing person > Senioiy ofthe person or ext in rani 8. cruz ve Ramos Petitioners are members ofthe Municipal Board of Manila having aterm of four years. They allage that because of appointment of one member to 3 Gitferert government position, one vacancy was created. The President of the Philippines appointed respondents to fil the vacancy and added two ‘addtional postions as created by the Charter of Manila. According to Delitoners atleast any two of the respondents are illegal usurping Intraing ite, and/or holding or exercising the rights and privileges and charging duties exclusively pertaining fo the Municipal Gard Because the creation of the office and appointment of any two respondents is Unconstitutional Respondents in thelr answer contend that petitioners do rot have legal capacity as they do nat claim to be entitled tothe office Fespondents occupy. They also claim that an action for usurpation of office ‘may be brought only by the Salictor General or by a fiscal i the name of the Republic of the Philppines. |SSUE: WON the quo warranto is proper. — NO HELD: Section 6 of Rule 68 (now Section 5, Rule 66) provides that ‘a person claiming tobe entitled to a public office usurped or unlawfully hele exercised by another may bring an action therefor in his own name. The resent petition isnot authorized by section 6 because the petoners do fot claim to be entitled tothe public office alleged tobe unlawfully held ortererciced by the respondents, As a matter of fact the pattioners allege that they are elected members ofthe municipal Board. They do not and ‘cannot claim that the respondents have supplanted them, a petitioners ontend, the Charter increasing the membership of the’ board Is Unconstitutional, the remedy avaiable to them a5 well as to any other titan isto relate the matter to the Soistor General and request him fo bring the action inthe name of the Republic ofthe Philippines. The only exception in which the law permits an individual to bring the action in his ‘own mame is when he claims fo be ented tothe public office alleges to be usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by anther. That however i not the present case DOCTRINE: Rule 62 (now Rule 66) governing Quo Warrant provides that an acton for usurpation of office may be brought only by the Solicitor General or by 2 fiscal i the name of the Repub ofthe Philippines. The ‘nly exception in which the aw permits an individual to bring the action in his own name is when he claims tobe entitled to the publi office alleged to be usurped or unlawful held or exercised by another: ‘There was an increase in positions for the members of the ‘Sangguniang, (Le from 6 became @ eo there ae positions being vacant) ‘They have no right at all because they have been occupying thet respective positions. This may not be applicable anymore. If there is any adéltional post for members of Lupan or Council t would be the legislate wi wl ‘reste adctonallavis and the manner by which that post wall be filled up i through elation, ut then in 1947 the appointment ofthe President which il up the poston. 9. Calleja vs. Panday Respondents Jose Panday et al. fled a petition with the RTO-Br. SB of (Camarines Sur for uo warranto and other remedies against Ma, Lutgarda Clea etal. for allegedly usurping the powers which supposedly belonged to Panday et al. as members ofthe board of directors and officers of St siohn Hospital, Incorporated. RTC. 58 Camsur transferred the case to FRTC-Naga City, but RTC-Naga City refuse to receive the case for mproper venue. RTC-Br 58 Camsur proceeded with the ase. Pettioners Tabora and others’ answer moved to dismiss the quo warrant case invoking improper venue, lack of jurisdiction and wrong remedy of quo warranto. RTC-Br. $8 CCamsur cismissed this mation to damiss. Hence this petition for view con cetorar assaling the said order ISSUES: Whether 2 branch ofthe RTC which has nojurisdction to ty and decide a case has authority to remand the same fo another co-equal court In order to cure the defects on venue and juriedition? “NO Whether or not Administrative Circular No, 8-01 dated January 23, 2007 lahich took effect on March 1, 2001 may Be applied in the present care which was filed on May 16, 2005? YES HELD: Caleja eta. chose the wrong remedy. However, it appears thatthe longer this case remains unresolved, the greater chance there is for more violence between the partes to erupt so the SC resolved to rule on the ‘merits. (See doctrine) DOCTRINE: Rule 66 ofthe 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure does not apoyo (quo warranto cases against persons who usurp an office in a private Corporation. tis The Interim Rules of Procedure Governing nia. Corporate Controversies Under RA. No. 8799 (Interim Rules) which applies tothe peltion for quo warranta. It the Regional Trial Court designated 25 ‘Special Commercial Courts in Camarines Sur which shall ave jurisdiction over the petition |s this an intra-corporate dispute? Yes 1s the petition for QW avalable to question or in isues involving intra corporate dispute? No ‘SC said petition for QW was an improper remedy It involves enly PUBLIC officials who appear to have been accunying iMegaly a public position. \What if there is a Q onthe corprate franchise of St. Jahn Hospital would QW be avaling? Vos falls under 3d category To assail validity of corporate franchise, QW may be availabe 10. Feliciano vs. Villain Feliciano was the GM of Leyte Metropolitan Water District and was recommended fo dismissal after authorizing back wages that he was notreporting to work for. The inte board of LMWD recommended his (demissal The new board of directors ordered Feliciano to resume the post he had vacated. The postion was accepted. Pursuant to the ppointment he made 2 recommended appomtments pursuant CSC resoluton. These recommendations were denied because Feliciano did not possess the required CSC approved appointment His reconsderations were denied because CSCRO decided that he lacked authory to appoint. AA his petition for review on certiorari and reconsideations were also denied. Finally the Court made an entry of judgement and cerifed that \iasin was the GM Feliciano fled withthe RTC a petiion for quo warranto against Vilasin. Feliciano asked the RTC to restore him to his position as GM of LMWD and remove Vilasin, This petion was dismiseed outight. Feliciano imputes (grave abuse of discretion onthe part ofthe RTC for allegedly falling to ford him due process, since his Petition fr Quo Warranto was dismissed based on ts face and without having been heard ISSUE: Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion when he dismissed the quo warranto case without any ial? NO HELD: Ove to the recent tun of events, Feliciano lost any legal standing to pursue Quo Warranto proceedings his claim to the poston of GM of EMWO considering this Cours En Bane Resolutions dated 6 June 2006 and 22 August 2006 in G.R. No. 172141 which denied with finality hie Petition for Review on Certorar ofthe Court of Appeals Decision dated 16 September 2005 and Resoluton dated 31 March 2006 in CAG.R. SP No, (00489 upholding the legally of CSC Resolution No, 050307 To recall OSC, his acts as GM of LMWO; and declared him to bea usurper of or an intruder tothe said postion begining 6 February 2001, an thus ‘ordered him to vacate the same, Considering that enty of judgment was already made in G.R. No. 172141 as of 14 November 2006, there is therefore no. more obstacle tothe {appointment by the LMWD Board of Directors of Vilasin as the new GM of two, Te Court emphasizes that an action for Quo Warranto may be dismissed atany stage when it becomes apparent thatthe planti is not etiled to the disputed publi ofc, postion or franchise. Hence, the RTC ie not compelled to stil proosed with the tral when is already apparent on the face of the Petion for Quo Warrant that tis insufficient. Te RTC may akeady dismiss sad pettion at this pont. DOCTRINE: The person instituting Quo Warranto proceedings on his own behalf, under Section 5, Rule 66 ofthe Rules of Court, must aver and be able to show that he is entitled to the office in depute. Without auch [verment of evidence of such ight, the action may be dismissed at any stage What did SC say? SC said no because the Court emphasized that ation for QW can be dismissed if plaintif is not entitled to the position. iis apparent here Feliciano isnot entitled so RTC cannot be compelled to proceed with the case Principle: Court has discretion ta dismiss at any stage of proceeding if there is clear infemity inthe petition: or the person suing is not {qualifled and courts not guity of GADALEL. tis a prerogative wit extraordinary remedy) Inthe Serafin v, Cruz case, 2 board overtumed a diferent board. In this case aboard ovetumed the previous board but the previous boar's decision has become fnal hence QW not applicable (Garcia. Perez casei also cited as justification, 11.Divinagracia vs. Consolidated Broadcasting System (085 and PES (C/PES), two of the three networks that operate "Bombo Radyo Philippines, operate radia broadcasting services by virtue oftheir legilatve franesices (RA_7477 and 7982). Under the’ RAs there 12 commen provision, aimed. towards the “constitutional mandate to Gemocratize ownership of publi ulites, that C/PBS should offer 30% of ‘ts common stocks tothe publi. Following these laws, NTC thus granted Provisional Authorities to C/PBS. DIVINAGRACIA then filed 2 complaints against /PBS, alleging that he was the owner of 12% of the shares of stock" of C/PBS separately and that both stations failed to make the 30% public offering of ther stocks a= ‘mandated by the RAs. For this failure, he prayed to cancel the Provisional Authorities granted to C/PRS as well as nite legislative franchises, NTCdismissed, saying it was not competent to render a ruling on that issue, that the complaint was a collateral attack onthe legislative franchises of (PBS, and that the same is more propery the subject of an action for quo warranto to the Republic of the Philppnes, pursuant to Rule 66 of the Rules of Court. CA: Armed DIVINAGRACIA counters that NTC has the power to cancel Provisional Authorities and CPCs, or in effect, the power to cancel the licenses that ‘lion broadcast stations to operate ISSUE: W/W NTC has the authority to cancel Provisional Authorities and Certificates of Public Convenience it issued to legislative fronchiee holders (Related Issue: W/N @ quo warrantos a more appropriate remedy? “YES: HELD: There is infact a more appropriate, more narrowlytailored and least restrictive remedy thats afforded by the lw for DIVINAGRACIA, which is (quo warranto under Rule 664. The special civil action of quo warrant isa preragativewntoythicttheGovernmenteancallpon arypereontachow by What warrant he holds a pubic office or exercises a public franchise. A forfeiture ofa franchise wil ave to be declared na drect proceeding for thepurposebroughtbytheStatebecause franchise ie granted by law and ts unlawful exercise is primary a concern of Government (Quo warranto is specicaly avalable as a remedy i tis thought that a (government corporation has offended against is corporate charter ot ‘misused its franchise, The determination ofthe right tothe exercise of a franchise, or whether the ight to enjoy such privlege has been forfeited by onaser, is more properly the subject of the prerogative writ of quo warrant, the right to assert which, 25 2 rule, belongs to the State 'ypon Complaint or otherwise! the reason beng thatthe abuse of a franchise is a ble wrong ang nat a private injury” DIVINAGRACIA argues that since ther prayer involves the cancelation of the provisional authority and CPCs, and not the legislative franchise, then (quo warrant fais a5 a remedy. This is without meri, as the authority of the franchisee to engage in broadcast operations ie derived in the legislative mandate. To cancel the provisional authoity or the CPC is, in fffect to cancel the franchise or otherwise prevent te exercise. What {ould happen i thatthe courte conclude that private respondents Mave Violated the forms of their franchise and thus issue the writs of quo Wwarranto against them, then the NTC is obliged to cancel any existing lenses and CPCs since these permits draw strength fom the possession ofa valid franchise DOCTRINE: Quo waranto is specifically avaiable as a remedy if itis ‘thought that a government corporation has offended against its cosporate charter or misused i franchise. The determination of the right to the exercise of a franchise or whether the eight to enjoy such priviege has ben forfeted by non-use, is more properly the subject ofthe prerogative vit of quo warrant, the right to assert which, as a rule, belongs tothe ‘State ‘upon complaint oF otherwise’ the razon being thatthe abuse of 3 franchises a pubic wrong and not a private inj.” ‘How can the NTC act on the matter? NTC dismissed saying snot competent to render decision on the isue andi is mare properly a subject of QW petition Did the SC sustain the theory of the NTC that it has presumed ‘authority to cancel the legislative franchise of broadcast stations? No. The SC sai the remedy ere should be QW (QW should be exercised by courts NOT NTC. NTC isa regulatory commiasion, and it cannat revoke the legislation (legislative franchise). 12:Sison ve. Pangramuyen {A pation fr certiorari quo warranto, and mandamus was filed by Sison ison questions the appointment of Malivanag as assistant cy ateessor by respondent Commissioner of CSC and the Mayor of Olongapa City. He claims that he should be the one appointed as per the nextin-ank: rule since his postion is Chief Deputy Assessor, 2 postion higher than Mawenag’ The petition was fled more that’ two yeare from the appointment ISSUE: WON petition for quo warranto, mandamus, and certiorari may be granted? No. It was filed out of time. Moreover, The resort to such ‘Sdministrative remedy does nat abate the period forthe judicial action HELD: The one,ear period fixed in Section 16 of Rule 66 as a condition precedent to the existance of cause of action for quo warrant apes ven if the petition is also for certiorari and mandamus, where the allegations supporting Sisoris cause or causes of action ball downto no ‘more than the removal of Malwanag from the position to which the later has been appointed in order to be replaced by Sison, Necessarily, the‘ouster of Malivanag has tabe based on a nulification of her appointment Fic utimate remedy therefor. e quo waranto, Anditis of no avaltoSison that during the intervening peti of more than fone year, he was seeking relief from the corresponding administrative Suthorties The resort to uch administrative remedy does nat abate the petod forthe judicial action. Malianag’s appointment was recommended by the Cty Assessor and his reasons therefor, stated In said official's indorsement to the Mayor recommending dismissal of Sison's protest thereto and quoted in the record, are substantial and well taken, n fact they have been reviewed by the Commissioner and found to be sustainable, as he did sustain them We are loathe 12 substitute Our own judgment for that of the Commissioner of Chl Service. DOCTRINE: The one-year period fixed in Section 16 of Rule 66 as a Condition precedent to the existence of cause of action for quo warrants {applies even ifthe petition i aleo for certiorari and mandamus, where the allegations supporting Sisois cause or causes of action ball downto no ‘more than the femoval of Malivanag from the postion. The resort o such {tdministative remedy does not abate the perio forthe jude action. It was intially @ petition for certorari but SC can treat it for an ‘appropriate one. [contra case: filed QW, certiorari and mandamus] Js there an aspect of timeliness? The resort to administrative proceedings does not tll the running af the prescriptive period If asked does an administrative case tll the prescriptive petiod, answer this ese, 12.cristoba ve. Melchor Plaintiff Cristobal was formerly employed as private secretary in the Presidents Private Office in Malacanang, appointed on July 1 1961. In January 1962, then Executive Secretary Mutu informed the plaintif that Cristobal services were terminated, along with other employees inthe same office. Their appeal for reconsideration was denied. Five of the employees terminated, not including Cristobal, filed a civil action against Secretary Mutuc and the cash disbursing officer of the OP praying for reinstatement and payment of their salaries. Upon reading the SC, it reversed the clamissel and declared their removal illegal, and ordered ther Feinstatement and payment of salaries from their date of dismissal until {actual reinstatement In May 1962, when the case ofthe employees were pending in the CFI Manila, the dismissed employees were recalled to their Position, without prejudice to thei civil action. Efforts were exerted by Secretary Mutuc fo look for placements so they may be employed, but Cristobal was not fortunate tobe reappointed despite numerous promises, vihich were denied repeatedly. In. August 10 1971, Cristobal fled = Complaint against then Exec Secretary Melchor and Cash disbursing lffcer Arcala, praying for declaring Cistobals dismissal legal, 10 be reinstated, to be paid back wages and salary Trial Court held that peltioner fled his case outside the present case outside the 1 year period Provided forthe exatence ofa cause of action for quo warrant, andthe fact that petitioner sought to pursue administrative remedies does not fexcuse euch falure to file the action within the said period, and likewise (doesnot toll the fling period ISSUE: W/N Cristobal is gully of laches for having filed the present case futside the 1 year period provided for the cause of action for quo ‘waranto? = NO HELD: The SC held that in this jurisdiction the consistent doctrine followed by this Courts that in actions of quo warrant involving ight to an office, the action must be instituted within the period of ane yea from the time the cause of action arose. In effect, it isthe doctrine of laches which is Invoked to defeat Jose Cristobal su, for not only eid Cristobal fal t le his complaint within one year fom the date of separation butts claimed. he allowed almost nine years to pass before coming to cour by reason of hich he is deemed to have acquiesced to his remaval. In Tham vs ‘Sibonghanoy, this Court stated that in a general sense, aches is flue or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that hich, by exercising due dligence, could or should have been done eae, ‘tie negigence or omission fo assert aright within a reasonable time, ‘warranting @ presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it However, there are certain ‘exceptional circumstances attending which take this case aut ofthe rule fenunciated above as to grant relief to appellant, such as inthe present ase a5 there was no acqulescence to oF inaction on the part of Jose Cristobal amounting to abandonment of his ight to reinstatement in ofice IR'wae an act of the government through ie responsible offi more Particularly then Executive Secretary Ameo Mutuc and his successors ‘which contibuted tothe alleged delay in the fing of Cristobal’ present‘complaint for reinstatement. It waa this continued promise of the {government officials concered which led Cristobal to bie his time and Wat for the Office of the President to comply with te commitment Furthermore, he had behind him the decision of the Supreme Court in Ingles ve. Mutue which he beloved should be applied in his favor. But when Cstoba, in answer to his vatious letters, received the letter of May 19, 1971 from the Office of the President denying his reinstatement. and declaring the matter “definitely closed” because of his fale to fle an facton in cour within one yea fom his separation, i was only then that he, Set the necessity of seeking redress from the cours. The doctine of laches is an equitable principle applied to promote but never to defeat justice. Again we have jurisprudence that where a fefendant or those claiming under him ecagnized or ecti or impliedly acknowledged existence of the right asserted by a plaintif, such Fecogntion may be invoked 25 a valid excuse for 2 plaintif's delay in seeking to enforce such right. In bre, itis indeed the better rule that Courts, under the principle of equty, wll nt be guided or bound strictly by the statute of limitations othe doctrine of laches when todo so, manifest ‘wrong and injustice would result DOCTRINE: Were laches is invoked against a plantif by reason ofthe Inter’ faire to come to court within the statutory peod provided inthe law, the doctrine of laches wil not be taken against him vwhere the defendant is shown to have promised from time to time to grant the relief sought fr + What has been efforts to negate laches? The SC said there were special circumstances inthis case. (One of which Cristobal fies MR after his separation from the service. And the Government gave him assurance. He was made to belive that he wil be reinstated to is former post. Under Labor law, if one is entitled to reinstatement ‘without any diminution with respect ta salary and position If one is entied to security of tenure and dismissal without valid bass, one is entitled to reinstatement ‘wth dination Was Cristobal reinstated to his actual position? No. Yet, the positon for which he was reinstated EQUIVALENT hence no diminution in position and benefits. Note: EXCEPTION tothe prescriptive period Government made him belive he is entitled tothe pasion and took the necessary step inthe restoration, he will not be lable for aches.Sen ‘SECTION 1. The Complaint. ~ The right of eminent domain shall be ferercised by the fing of a verified complain wich shall state with Cerainy the right and purpose of expropration, describe the real ot personal property sought to be expropriated, and join as defendants all persons owning or claiming to own, or occupying, any part thereat or Interest therein, showing, so far as practicable, the separate interest of tach defendant. Ifthe tle to any property sought to be expropriated ‘appears to be in the Republic of the Philippines, athough occupied by private individuals, oF i the tile is otherwise obscure or doubtful so that the plait’ cannot with accuracy or certainty speciy who are the real lnners,averment to that effect may be madein the complaint. (12) SECTION 2 Entry of Plaintiff Upon Depositing Value With Authorized Government Depositary. ~ Upon the fling ofthe complaint ar at any ime thereafter and after due ntie tothe defendant the plait hall have the right to take or enter upon the possession ofthe real property involved if he deposits with the authorized government depositary an amount ‘equivalent to the assessed value of the property for purposes of taxation to be held by such bank subject to the orders ofthe court Such deposit shall be in money, unless in leu theref the court authorizes the deposit of 8 certfeate of deposit of 2 government bank of the Republic of the Philippines payable on demand tothe authorized government depositary. It personal property is involve, ts value shall be provisionally ascertained ‘and the amount to be deposited shal be promptly fixed bythe court ‘ter auch deposi is made the court hall rer the sheriff or other proper ofcer to forthwith place the plaintiff in possession of the property Involved and promptly submit a report thereof tothe court with service of Copies to the partes. (23) SECTION 3. Defenses and Objections. ~ Ifa defendant has no objection or defense to the action or the taking of his propery, he may fl and serve a notice of appearance and a manifestation to that effect, specifically ‘designating or identifying the propery in which he claims tobe interested, within the time stated inthe summons. Thereafter, he shall be entitled to atice ofall proceedings affecting the same, fa defendant has any objection tothe fling of or the allegations inthe ‘complain, or any objection or defense tothe taking of his property, he ‘hal serve his answer within the time stated inthe summons. The answer shall specifically designate or identify the property in which he claims to have an interest, state the nature and extent of the interest claimed, and ‘adduce all his objections and defenses to the taking of his property. No Counterclaim, cross-claim or thidiparty complaint shall be alleged or allowed inthe answer ar any subsequent pleading, [A defendant waives all defenses and objections not so alleged but the Court, in the interest of justice, may permit amendments to the answer to bbe made not later than ten (10) days from the fling thereof. However, at the tal of the issue of ust compensation, whether or nota defendant has previously appesred or answered, he may present evidence as to the amount ofthe compensation tobe pad for his property, and he may share inthe citribution ofthe award.) ‘SECTION 4. Order of Expropriation. ~ Ifthe bjections to and the defenses ‘against the right of the plaitif toexpropriate the property ae overruled, or vinen no party appears to defend as required by tis Fle, the court may Issue an order of expropriation declaring thatthe pain has a lawful ight to take the property sought to be expropriated forthe puble use or purpose descrbed” inthe complaint, upon the payment of just ‘compensation tobe determined as ofthe date of the taking ofthe property tr the fling of the complaint whichever came fst [A final order sustaining the right to exproprate the property may be ‘appealed by any party aggrieved thereby. Such appeal, however shall not Prevent the court from determining the ust compensation tobe pad After the rendition of such an order, the plaintiff shall nat be permitted to Gismiss or discontinue the proceeding except on such terms as the court deems just and equitable. (43) ‘SECTION 5. Ascertsinment of Compensation. ~ Upon the rendition of the fexder of expropriation, the court shall appoint not more than three (3) Competent and disinterested persons as commissioners to ascertain and report tothe court the just compensation fr the property sought to be {ken The order of appointment shall designate the time and place ofthe fist session of the hearing to be held by the commissioners and speciy the time within which thei report shall be submitted tothe court‘Copies of the order shal be served on the partes, Objactone to the appointment of any of the cormmissioners shal be fled with the court within on (10) daye from service, and shall be resolved within tity (20) {aye after all the commissioners shall have received copies of the ‘objections (Sa) SECTION 6, Proceedings by Commissioners. ~ Before entering upon the performance of thei duties, the commissioners shal take and subscribe fan oath that they wil fathiuly perform their duties as commissioners, tihich oath shall be filed in court with the other proceedings inthe cass Evidence may be introduced by ether party before the commissioners who are authorized to administer oaths on hearings before them. and the ‘commissioners shall unless the partis consent to the contrary, ater due hatice othe parties a attend, view and examinethe property sought tobe expropriated and its surroundings, and may measure the same, after which tether parly may, by himself or counsel, argue the case. The Commissioners shall assess the consequential damages tothe property hot taken and deduet from such consequential damages the consequential benefits tobe derived by the ner from the puble use or purpose ofthe property taken, the operation of te franchise by the corporation ofthe arryng on of the business of the corporation of person taking the propery. But in no case shall the consequential benefits assessed exceed the consequential damages assessed, or the owner be deprived of the actual value of his propery so taken. (6a) ‘SECTION 7. Report by Commissioners and Judgment Thereupon. ~ The Court may order the commissioners to report when any particular portion Of the realestate shall ave been passed upon by them, and may render judgment upon such partal report, and direct the commissioners to proceed with ther work as to subsequent portions of the propery sought fo be expropriated, and may from time to time so deal with such property ‘The commissioner all make a ful and accurate report t the court ofa their proceedings, and such proceedings shall not be effectual unt the Court shall have accepted their report and rendered. judgment in faccordance with the recommendations. Except ae otherwise expressly ‘rdered by the court, such report shal be fle within sity (60) days from the date the commissioners were ntifed oftheir appointment, which time ‘may be extended in the cscreton ofthe court Upon the fling of such report the clerk ofthe court shall serve copies thereof on all interested partis, with notice that they ae allowed ten (10) days within which to fle bbjections to the ndings ofthe report if they go desire (73) ‘SECTION 8. Action Upon Commissioners Report. — Upon the expiration of the period often (10) days refered to inthe preceding section, or even before the expiration of such period but after all the interested parties have fled their objections to the report or the statement of agreement therewith, the court may, after hearing. accept the report and render udgment in accordance therewith o, for cause shown t may recommit the same to the commissioners for further report of facts; or it may set fside the report and appoint new commissioners; or may accept the report in part and reject itn part; and it may make such order or render Such judgment as shall secure to the plait the property essential othe ferercise of his right of exeropriation, and to the defendant just Compensation for the property so taken. (83) SECTION 9. Uncertain Ownership; Conflicting Claims. ~ I the ownership Of the property taken is uncertain, or there are conficting claims to any part thereof, the court may order any sum or sums awarded a5 Compensation forthe property to be paid tothe court forthe benefit of the person adjudged in the same proceeding to be entitled thereto. But the judgment shall require the payment ofthe sum or sums awarded to either the defendant or the court before the plant ean enter upon the property, ‘of retain it forthe public use or purpose if entry has already been made, (Ga) ‘SECTION 10, Rights of Plaintiff After Judgment and Payment. ~ Upon payment by the paint tothe defendant of the compensation fixed bythe adgment, with legal interest thereon frm the taking ofthe possession of the propery rafter tender to him of the amounts fixed and payment of the ‘costs, the plamtiff shall have the right to enter upon the property fexproprated and to appropriate it forthe publ use r purpose de ned in the judgment, orto retain it should he have taken immediate possession thereof under the provisions of Section 2 hereof. Ifthe defendant and his counsel absent themselves from the court or decline to receive the fmount tendered, the same shall be ordered to be deposited in court ang uch depost shall have the same effect as actual payment threo! fo the Gefendant or the person ultimately adjudged entitled thereto. (102) ‘SECTION 11. Entry Not Delayed by Appea Effect of Reversal. ~The ight (ofthe plantif to enter upon the propery ofthe defendant and appropriate the same for public use or purpose shall not be delayed by an appeal rom the jadgment. But ifthe appellate court determines that plaintif has no fight of expropriation, judgment shall be rendered ordering the Regional ‘Tal Court to fortwrth enforce the restoration to the defendant of thepossession of the property, and to determine the damages which the fefendant sustained and may recover by reason of the possession taken by the paint. (113) SECTION 12. Costs, by Whom Pad. ~ The foes of the commissioners hal be taxed ae 3 part ofthe costs of the proceedings. All cost, except those of rival claimants litigating thei claims, shall be paid by the plant, unless an appeal is taken by the ouner ofthe propery and the judgments armed, in which event the costs ofthe appeal shall be paid bythe owner (2a) SECTION 13. Recording Judgment, and its Effect. ~ The judgment entered in expropriation proceedings shall state definitely, by an adequate description the particular property or interest therein expropriated, and the ature ofthe public use or purpose for which itis expropriated, When real estate is expropriated, 2 cetiied copy of such judgment shall be recorded in the registry of deeds ofthe place in which the property is situated. and its effect shall be to vest in the plaitff the tile to the real estate so described for such public use or purpose. (13a) SECTION 14, Power of Guardian in Such Proceedings. ~ The quardian or guardian ad litem of a minor of of a person judicially declared to be incompetent may, with the approval ofthe court frst had, do and perform (on behalf of his ward any act. mater or thing respecting the expropriation fer public use or purpose af property belonging to such minor or person judealy declared tobe incompetent which such minor or person judicially {declared tobe incompetent could doin auch proceedings fhe were of age lr competent. (14a) ‘The State ovns everyting Whatever we have just temporary surender of State Tie is proof therefore hat we are granted by State to own a particular real property Ike a priviage which can be taken back by the State through ‘Government if there isan overriding necessity that will benefit public ‘Te state cannot just take it hack without due process Procedure State should follow to take back the property is under R67 IT of ROC provides forthe procedure which the State through ‘government can take property owned privately see. Process of expropriation Procedure intiate by government though Prosecution ofice of official alowed under he law Provisions of R67 ‘Appropriate court: RTC (petition for expropriation is one of those: actions which is considered incapable of pecuniary estimation ites ‘within the province or jurisdiction of RTC) What are the contents? 1. State with certainty right and purpose of expropriation ‘2 Purpose should only be for public use and therefore ‘the complaint should set out clearly and adequately enough to convince the RTC of the public purpose for which a private property is intended to be expropriated. n order ti guide the court about the scope or area or identity of the property to be expropriated, there should be the complete description Leal Prop-certicate of tite whether OCT or TeT(t ovmership transfered in favor of another person) li The object of expropriation not exclusive to real properties, Personal properties may also be subject of expropriation. 1. Bx Anything that could be of value ‘that may be expropriated for public toe such ae artifacts with historical value that may be made avaiable forpublicuse 2. Wotk of art may also be better used bythe public 3. Other properties or objects of historical or with cultural value may be expropriated.4. A book may also be donated by the ‘government to. public libraries previously oumed privately These personally properties should be described specifialy and adequately so the ‘same will be identifed/cstinguished from other properties that could be within the same classification Under Sec. 1 the description shouldbe set out, defendants named Defendants + owning, claiming to own, cccupying for showing therein the separate interest of each defendant, ‘The last portion states “If the tile to any property sought to be expropriated appears to be in the Republic of.” There is one case we have where the property was under the name of the Republic of the PH but there were other ‘claimants. Ifthe property is under the name of the Republic of the PH but there is an adverse claim made by a private individual, that can be subject of an action for expropriation. Government may petition to court through expropriation of @ property Under its name claimed by other individuals Section 2 Infrastructure, ete where there ie sense of urgency the government ‘may take over the propery even before the decree issued by court provided thatthe corresponding assessed value is determined and that the amount in money is deposited fist with a bank as termed here under Section 2, it should be deposited with the bank upon ‘order of the court unless in lieu thereof the court authorizes the deposit of a cerifiate of deposit of a government bank of the Republic of the Philippines payable on demand to the authorized ‘goverment depository ‘As long as there is a sense of urgency where the project will be delayed, the government may take over the property as long as a deposit ie made ora deposit certificate Petition of expropriation wll wel exclusively i the determination of just compensation in the event the expropriation authority ie not questioned “Two stages 1. Initial stage where the court is required to determine if the property is indeed necessary for a certain public purpose -» would require hearing. Court will issue summons to the name defendant. The defendant may or may not contest. If fa contest to propriety of expropriation, the court wil Proceed to determine the appropriate JC and government can take over 12 If there is @ question, there will bea civil action Basis fr object to petition No genuine pubic necessity and the expropriation will not serve. paramount public purpose. That's the issue that wil Confront the court in the first stage of peiition win intended expropriation of a pvately owed property will serve a (genuine public purpose 1 if there is no purpose then that will be the end of the petition before the RTC where it willbe dlemissed. t's up to pfetiioner to file an appeal swith C8 2. Incase RTC decides otherwise and determines there is genuine public purpose, such order or resolution of the court is FINAL in character that is why we may say the petition for expropriation is one of those which can be subject to MULTIPLE appeals that could be taken by any party who may be aggrieved by a‘solution or order that i final or the decision of the court. Decision showing genuine puble necessity, ‘agrieved party who is the defendant may fle an appeal. MRIS NECESSARY. After denial of MR, the defendant may take an appeal, but that appeal wil NOT stay further proceedings as the court will now proceed to the second state of the proceedings which isthe determination of JC Section 4 - Order of Expropriation 2. Determination of Just compensation "© Unless theres @ TRO or Preliminary Injunction In auch circumstances the lower court wil have to follow the court order and suspend proceedings forthe meantime. [Absence of such Prelim Unie Reliet, the court will proceed tod etermine what could be the appropriate JC. For that under the fules, See. § the court may appoint Commissioners. Their opinions may guide the cour. {The Commissioner may be a person recommended by petitioner Another commissioner ‘recommended by defendant ii, Third) member could be coming from the court tslf who could be the cere of court ‘Sec, § says the court wil nat appoint more than 3 50 it can just be 1 expert forthe determination of JC such as an accessor from the LGU. The Assessor incidentally i= the competent fcr to determine valuation Of properties within his jursciction.Anather {is a geodetic engineer expert in valuation of propery Brokers can alsa be appointed. Any individual may be appointed to guide the court similar to amicus curiae. ‘These commissioner/s will have to take an cath and with such oath taken, he/she will be considered an officer of the court. An officer of the court means the commissioner may get the opinion of certain individuals and may request the court for coercive process ifthe individual may nat be wling, 1 that individual would be indispensable in the determination of JC. Thats how an officer of the court may compel attendance cof certain individuals regarding certain matters at hand ‘These Commissioners wil come up with their own opinion regarding the valuation and once the report is submitted to the court, it wll be up to the court whether to adopt the same since the report is not ‘automatically binding, I the court is not Satisfied and the court believes there are certain questions, the court may tell the Commissioners to conduct further studies, ‘Commissioner's reports are persuasive and NOT binging Not automatically binding oF necessariy binding but helps the court (persuasive). The court may instruct commissioners to consider other factors in order to atrve at Just compensation. Once the Court determines what should be the appropriate JC then the same wil have to be delivered to. the defendant. The defendant CANNOTrefuse and i the defendant private ‘owner decines to accept then the same wil have to be tendered or deposited or consigned with the ‘propriate financial institution such ‘the Landbank of the PH where the government has 2 wide Section 10 1 the defendant and his counsel absent themselves from the court, or decline to receive the amount tendered the same shall be ordered to bbe deposited in court and such deposit shal have the same effect as ‘actual payment thereof to the defendant or the person utimately ‘adjudged ented thereta.” ‘You make take note the subsequent Section 11 at least from the ‘cada its only under Section 17 where the rules expresly provide that it is the RTC which has jurisdiction over a petition for ‘expropriation. It says: The right of the plait to enter ypon the property ofthe defendant and appropiate the same fr public use or ‘purpose shal not be delayed by an appeal om the judgment.” ven if there is an appeal regarding the judgment the determination of of IC wil push through. Section 1. Entry not delayed by appeal: effect of reversal. — The ight ofthe plaintiff to enter upon the property of the defendant and appropriate the ‘same for public use or purpose shall nt be delayed by an appeal from the judgment. Sut f the appellate court determines that plaintiff has no saht of ‘expropriation, judgment shall be rendered ordering the Regional Trial Curt 1 forthwith enforce the restoration tothe defendant ofthe possession of the property, and to determine the damages which the defendant sustained and may recover by eason ofthe possession taken by the plait. ‘niy at ths point where the RTC wll enforce restoration to defendant the propery and determine the damages due to the possession. ‘A scenario wiere after appeal is successful. The proceedings before RIC wil continue despite appeal. if such appeals successful then the appellate court (CA or SC depending how parties wll seck Jucicial remedy) then the records wil be REMANDED as any other case where execution has to be undertaken, Remanded to criginal court which is RTC and return the possession to the one dispossessed (Once the whole process of the petition for expropriation is undertaken, Sec-12 dwells with WHOM cost shall e levied In the decision the court/appelate court depending who wll Getermine the issue or adjudge costs an from whom willbe collectad/levied, The records with the Registry of Deeds wil also have to be changed depending on the eutcome. Ifthe property is given to petitioner therefore the petition was found meritorious then RO wl be instructed to cancel the OG or previous certificate of tile and issue anew onein favor of petitioner. Section 14, Power of guardian in such proceedings. ~ The guardian or (uarsian ad litem of a minor or of a person judicially declared to be Incompetent may, with the approval ofthe eourt frat had do and perform on behalf of his ward any act, matter, or thing respecting the expropriation for public use or purpose of property belonging to such minor or person judicially declared to be incompetent, wich such minor or person judicially ‘eclared tobe incompetent coud do in such proceedings fhe were of age ot competent Regarding guardians. If owner appears incompetent or declared judicially as incompetent. Guardian will be appointed called guardian ad item. This is ifferent from a quatdian appointed in petition for guardianship for award ‘Guardian ad item - appointed ony for that specific purpose: (or that particular case) 1. Barangay San Roque Talisay, Cebu vs. Hels of Pastor Petitioner fied before the MTC of Talisay, Cebu a Complaint i expropriate ‘property of the respondents, The MTC ciemiseed the Complaint on the ‘ound of lack of jurisdiction. It reasoned that eminent domain isan exercise of the power to take private property fr public use after payment Of ust compensation. In an action for eminent domain, therefore, the Principal cause of ction isthe exerci of such power or right. The fact