99. CUEVAS V BACAL G.R. No.

139382 December 6, 2000

FACTS

Respondent Josefina G. Bacal passed the Career Executive Service Examinations. She was
designated as Acting Chief Public Attorney and her appointment was confirmed by President
Ramos.

Petitioner Carina J. Demaisip was appointed "chief public defender" (formerly chief public
attorney) by President Joseph Estrada. On the other hand, respondent was appointed "Regional
Director, Public Defenders Office" by the President.

Respondent filed a petition for quo warranto questioning her replacement as Chief Public
Attorney. CA ruled in favor of respondent.

ISSUE Whether or not the petition for quo warranto is tenable

HELD

No. As held in Carillo v. Court of Appeals,22 "in a quo warranto proceeding the person suing must
show that he has a clear right to the office allegedly held unlawfully by another. Absent that
right, the lack of qualification or eligibility of the supposed usurper is immaterial." 23 Indeed, this
has been the "exacting rule"24 since it was first announced, 95 years ago, in Acosta v. Flor.25 As at
present embodied in Rule 66, 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the rule is that "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."

In the instant case, respondent does not have the rank appropriate for the position of Chief
Public Attorney, her appointment to that position cannot be considered permanent, and she can
claim no security of tenure in respect of that position.