Rule 66

QUO WARRANTO
RULE 66
• SECTION 1. Action by Government against
individuals. - An action for the usurpation of a
public office, position or franchise may be
commenced by a verified petition brought in the
name of the Republic of the Philippines against:
• a) A person who usurps, intrudes into, or
unlawfully holds or exercises a public office,
position or franchise;
• b) A public officer who does or suffers an act
which, by the provision of law, constitutes a
ground for the forfeiture of his office; or
• c) An association which acts as a
corporation within the Philippines without
being legally incorporated or without lawful
authority so to act. (1a)
• Compliance with the Constitutional and statutory
requirement of filing of SALN intimately relates to
a person’s integrity. Contrary to Respondent’s
postulation that the filing of SALN bears no
relation to the requirement of integrity, the filing
of SALN itself is a Constitutional and statutory
requirement, under Section 17, Article XI of the
Constitution, R.A. No. 3019, and the Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials
and Employees. Faithful compliance with
trequirement of the filing of SALN is rendered
even more exacting when the public official
concerned is a member of the Judiciary.
• SECTION 2. When Solicitor General or
public prosecutor must commence action.
- The Solicitor General or a public
prosecutor, when directed by the
President of the Philippines, or when
upon complaint or otherwise he has good
reason to believe that any case specified
in the preceding section can be
established by proof, must commence
such action. (3a)
• SECTION 3. When Solicitor General or public
prosecutor may commence action with
permission of court. - 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 at the request and upon the
relation of another person; but in such 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. (4a)
• SECTION 4. When hearing had on application
for permission to commence action. - 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; and 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. (5a)
• SECTION 5. When an individual may
commence such an action. - 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. (6)
• SECTION 6. Parties and contents of petition
against usurpation. - When the action is against
a person for usurping a public office, position or
franchise, the petition shall set forth the name of
the person who claims to be entitled thereto, if
any, with an averment of his right to the same
and that the respondent is unlawfully in
possession thereof. All persons who claim to be
entitled to the public office, position or franchise
may be made parties, and their respective rights
to such public office, position or franchise
determined, in the same action. (7a)
• SECTION 7. Venue. - An action under the
preceding six sections can be brought only
in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals,
or in the Regional Trial Court exercising
jurisdiction over the territorial 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 Trial Court in the City of Manila,
in the Court of Appeals, or in the Supreme
Court. (8a)
• Whether the Court can assume jurisdiction and
give due course to the instant petition for quo
warranto against Respondent who is an impeachable
officer and against whom an impeachment
complaint has already been filed with the House of
Representatives. YES
• SC has original jurisdiction over an action for quo

warranto. Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution states
that the SC has original jurisdiction over petitions for quo
warranto. This jurisdiction is concurrent with the Court of
Appeals (CA) and the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Section
7, Rule 66 of Rules of Court provides that the venue for
an action for quo warranto is in the RTC of Manila, CA,
or SC when commenced by the Solicitor General.
• While the hierarchy of courts serves as a general
determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for
the extraordinary writs, a direct invocation of the SC’s
original jurisdiction in this case is justified considering
that the qualification of a Member of the Court is in
question, and the issue is of public concern.
• The petition for quo warranto is of

transcendental importance. The instant petition is
one of first impression and of paramount importance to
the public in the sense that the qualification, eligibility
and appointment of an incumbent Chief Justice, the
highest official of the Judiciary, are being scrutinized
through an action for quo warranto.
• On the argument that Respondent is an
impeachable officer such that a quo warranto
petition cannot prosper, the Court held that the
origin, nature and purpose of impeachment and
quo warranto are materially different. While both
impeachment and quo warranto may result in
the ouster of the public official, the two
proceedings materially differ. At its most basic,
impeachment proceedings are political in
nature; while an action for quo warranto
is judicial or a proceeding traditionally
lodged in the courts
• Furthermore, there is no forum-shopping, as alleged by the
Respondent, because quo warranto and impeachment
can proceed independently and simultaneously, as
they differ as to (1) jurisdiction (2) grounds, (3)
applicable rules pertaining to initiation, filing and
dismissal, and (4) limitations. The causes of action in
the two proceedings are unequivocally different. In quo
warranto, the cause of action lies on the usurping,
intruding, or unlawfully holding or exercising of a public
office, while in impeachment, it is the commission of an
impeachable offense. Likewise, the reliefs sought in the two
proceedings are different. Respondent in a quo warranto
proceeding shall be ordered to cease holding a public
office, which he/she is ineligible to hold. On the other
hand, in impeachment, a conviction shall result in the
removal of the Respondent from the public office that
he/she is legally holding.
• SECTION 8. Period for pleadings and
proceedings may be reduced; action given
precedence. - The court may reduce the
period provided by these Rules for filing
pleadings 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 any other civil matter
pending in the court. (9a)
• SECTION 9. Judgment where usurpation found.
- When the respondent is found guilty of
usurping, intruding into, or unlawfully holding or
exercising a public office, position or franchise,
judgment shall be rendered that such
respondent be ousted and altogether excluded
therefrom, and that the petitioner or relator, as
the case may be, recover his costs. Such
further judgment may 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. (10a)
• SECTION 10. Rights of persons adjudged
entitled to public office; delivery of books and
papers; damages. - If judgment be rendered in
favor of the person 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, take upon himself
the execution of the office, and may
immediately thereafter demand of the
respondent all the books and papers in the
respondent's custody or control appertaining to
the office to which the judgment relates.
• If the respondent refuses or neglects to
deliver 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 entitled to the
office 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 one (1) year after the
cause of such ouster, or the right of the
petitioner to hold such office or position, arose;
nor to authorize an action for damages in
accordance with the provisions of the next
preceding section unless the same be
commenced within one (1) year after the entry of
the judgment establishing the petitioner's right to
the office in question. (16a)
• Whether the petition is dismissible outright
on the ground of prescription. NO
• Prescription does not lie against the State.
The one-year limitation is not applicable when
the Petitioner is not a mere private individual
pursuing a private interest, but the government
itself seeking relief for a public wrong and suing
for public interest. In the three instances
enumerated by Rules of Court, the Solicitor
General is mandated under the Rules to
commence the necessary quo warranto petition, as
seen in the use of the word “must.”
• In Agcaoili v. Suguitan, “As a general
principle it may be stated that ordinary
statutes of limitation, civil or penal, have no
application to quo warranto proceeding
brought to enforce a public right.” In effect,
when the government is the real party in
interest, and is proceeding mainly to assert
its rights, there can be no defense on the
ground of laches or prescription. 5
• SECTION 12. Judgment for costs. - In
an action brought in accordance with
the provisions of this Rule, the court
may render judgment for costs against
either the petitioner, the relator, or the
respondent, or the person or persons
claiming to be a corporation, or may
apportion the costs, as justice requires.
(17a)

Rule 66

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rule 66

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rule 66

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

QUO WARRANTO

• SC has original jurisdiction over an action for quo

• The petition for quo warranto is of

You might also like