Quo Warranto

What is a quo warranto?

1) Quo warranto is a demand made by the state upon some individual or corporation to show by what right they exercise some franchise or privilege appertaining to the state which, according to the Constitution and laws they cannot legally exercise by virtue of a grant and authority from the State (44 Am. Jur. 88-89).

▪ A proceeding or writ issued by the court to determine the right to use an office, position or franchise and to oust the person holding or exercising such office, position or franchise if his right is unfounded or if a person performed acts considered as grounds for forfeiture of said exercise of position, office or franchise. Quo warranto may also be used when an association acts as a corporation within the Philippines without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority so to act.

▪ A quo warranto is a prerogative writ by which the Government can call upon any person to show by what warrant he holds a public office or exercises a public franchise. (3 Moran 208 )

2)  It is a special civil action commenced by a verified petition against (a) a person who usurps a public office, position or franchise; (b) a public officer who performs an act constituting forfeiture of a public office; or (c) an association which acts as a corporation within the Philippines without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority to do so (Rule 66, Sec. 1).

Who may file a case for quo warranto?

1. 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. (Rule 66, Sec 2) (MANDATORY QUO WARRANTO) 

2. 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. (Rule 66, Sec 3) (DISCRETIONARY QUO WARRANTO) 

3. A person claiming to be entitled to a public office usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another may also bring an action for QW in his own name. (Rule 66, Sec 5)

When government commence an action against individuals

(QW in the name of the Philippines)

1) Quo warranto is commenced by a verified petition brought in the name of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines by the Solicitor General, or in some instances, by a public prosecutor (Rule 66, Secs. 2 and 3). When the action is commenced by the Solicitor General, the petition may be brought in the Regional Trial Court of the City of Manila, the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court (Sec. 7). 

2) 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 thru the Solicitor General 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;

(c) An association which acts a corporation within the Philippines without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority so to act (Sec. 1).

When individual may commence an action for quo warranto

(QW in the name of a private individual)

The petition for quo warranto may be commenced by a private person in his own name where he claims to be entitled to the public office or position alleged to have been usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another (Rule 66, Sec. 5). 

Accordingly, the private person may maintain the action without the intervention of the Solicitor General and without need for any leave of court (Navarro vs. Gimenez, 10 Phil. 226; Cui vs. Cui, 60 Phil. 37). In bringing a petition for quo warranto, he must show that he has a clear right to the office allegedly being held by another (Cuevas vs. Bacal, 347 SCRA 338). It is not enough that he merely asserts the right to be appointed to the office. 

Sol-Gen vs. Private Individual

Private individual – In petitions for quo warranto filed by a private individual, it is necessary for him to prove his right to the office. If he fails to prove, it is unnecessary for the court to pass on the right of defendant in office.

Solicitor-General – But when instituted by the Sol-Gen or the public prosecutor, it is not necessary that there be a person claiming to be entitled to the office alleged to have been usurped. The duty of the court is to pass upon the right of the defendant to the office. (Acosta vs. Flor, 5 Phil 18, 1905)

When to file

Action must be commenced within 1 year after the cause of such ouster, or the right of the petitioner to hold such office or position, arose. 

● The periods within which the quo warranto action should be brought are conditions precedent to the existence of a cause of action. The action cannot prosper beyond said periods even if such a defense was not raised by the defendant in the lower court (Abeto vs. Rodas, 82 Phil 59).

● The one-year period, however, is not interrupted by the prosecution of any administrative remedy as, in quo warranto proceedings, no one is compelled to resort to administrative remedies since public interest requires the right to public office should be determined as speedily as possible. (Galano vs. Roxas, L-31241, Sept. 12, 1975)

Where to file (venue)

1. Supreme Court

2. Court of Appeals

3. RTC where the respondent or any of the respondent resides

4. RTC, CA, SC (concurrent jurisdiction) - when Solicitor-General commences the action

5. Sandiganbayan (under R.A. 8249) - petition for quo warranto arising or that may arise in cases filed or that may be filed under EO 1, 2, 14 & 14- A

6. Municipal Trial Court (ONLY INSTANCE) - petition for quo warranto for the disqualification of an elected barangay official 

What is the nature or tenor of the judgment

When the respondent is found guilty of usurping into, 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. (Rule 66, Sec. 9)

What are the rights of persons adjudged entitled to office?

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:

1. Take upon himself the execution of the office;

2. May immediately thereafter demand all the books and papers in the respondent’s custody or control appertaining to the office to which the judgment relates; and

▪ If respondent refuses, he may be punished for indirect contempt. 

3. May bring an action against the respondent to recover damages sustained by such persons by reason of usurpation. (Rule 66, Sec. 10)

▪ The action for damages should be commenced within 1 year after the entry of the judgment establishing petitioner’s right to the office in question.  (Rule 66, Sec. 11)

Limitations:

1. Quo Warranto - file within 1 year from the date of usurpation

2. Damages - file within 1 year from entry of judgment (Rule 66, Sec. 11)

If there is a dispute between and among the Board of Directors of a private corporation, one group claiming that they have been usurped, is the proper remedy quo warranto?

No.  This is an intra-corporate dispute to be filed in the regular courts (RTC) having original jurisdiction

Peculiarities of Proceedings

1.  When the Solicitor General or a public prosecutor commences the action at the instance of another person, leave of court must first be secured.

2. The motion for leave must be set for hearing with notice to the respondent so that he may be heard.

3. The court issues the order allowing the filing of the action within the period fixed therein.

Quo Warranto as distinguished from Election Contest

ELECTION PROTEST	QUO WARRANTO
Proper remedy if the dispute is as to the counting of votes or on matters connected with the conduct of the election.   An election contest challenges the right of a person to hold office on the ground of IRREGULARITIES in the conduct of the elections for said office.	Proper action when the dispute is on the INELIGIBILITY of a person sought to be ousted
In election contests, the successful protestant will ASSUME the office if he had obtained plurality of the valid votes	If the quo warranto proceeding succeeds, the respondent will be ousted but the petitioner will NOT ASSUME the office

Distinctions between Quo Warranto in elective and appointive offices

QW (ELECTIVE OFFICE)	QW (APPOINTIVE OFFICE)
The issue is the eligibility of the respondent	The issue is the validity of the appointment
The occupant who was declared ineligible or disloyal will be unseated but the petitioner will not be declared the rightful occupant of the office.	The court will oust the person illegally appointed and will order the seating of the person who was legally appointed and entitled to the office.

Quo warranto vs. Mandamus

QUO WARRANTO	MANDAMUS
Remedy to try disputes with respect to the title to a public office. The right to the office itself is disputed.	The remedy to oust the usurper where there is no dispute as to who has the title to the public office but the adverse party, without lawful ground, prevents the rightful occupant from assuming the office (Lota vs CA, L-14803, June 30, 1961)

Quo Warranto (Election Code) vs. Quo Warranto (Rule 66)

Quo Warranto (Election Code)	Quo Warranto (Rule 66)
To contest the right of an electoral   public officer to hold public office.	Prerogative writ by w/c the govt. can call upon any person to show by what title he holds a public office or exercises a public franchise
An electoral proceeding under the Omnibus Elections Code for the exclusive purpose of impugning the election of a public officer on the ground of ineligibility or disqualification to hold the office	Three grounds: usurpation, forfeiture, or illegal association
Petition must be filed within 10 days from the proclamation of the candidate	Presupposes that the respondent is   already actually holding office and action must be commenced within one year from cause of ouster or right of petitioner to hold office arose
May be filed by any registered candidate for the same office and, who, even if the petition prospers, would not be entitled for that office.	The petitioner must be the government or the person entitled to the office and who would assume the same if his action succeeds.