Liban vs. Gordon, 593 SCRA 68 , July 15, 2009 (PETITION to declare Senator Richard J.

Gordon as
Having Forfeited His Seat in the Senate.)
Special Proceedings; Quo Warranto; Quo warranto is generally commenced by the Government as the
proper party plaintiff; An individual may commence such an action if he claims to be entitled to the
public office allegedly usurped by another, in which case he can bring the action in his own name.—Quo
warranto is generally commenced by the Government as the proper party plaintiff. However, under
Section 5, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, an individual may commence such an action if he claims to be
entitled to the public office allegedly usurped by another, in which case he can bring the action in his
own name. The person instituting quo warranto proceedings in his own behalf must claim and be able to
show that he is entitled to the office in dispute, otherwise the action may be dismissed at any stage. In
the present case, petitioners do not claim to be entitled to the Senate office of respondent. Clearly,
petitioners have no standing to file the present petition.

Same; Same; Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC); Public Officers; Constitutional Law; The Philippine
National Red Cross (PNRC) Chairman is not an official or employee of the Executive branch since his
appointment does not fall under Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution; Not being a government
official or employee, the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) Chairman, as such, does not hold a
government office or employment.—The President does not appoint the Chairman of the PNRC. Neither
does the head of any department, agency, commission or board appoint the PNRC Chairman. Thus, the
PNRC Chairman is not an official or employee of the Executive branch since his appointment does not
fall under Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution. Certainly, the PNRC Chairman is not an official or
employee of the Judiciary or Legislature. This leads us to the obvious conclusion that the PNRC
Chairman is not an official or employee of the Philippine Government. Not being a government official
or employee, the PNRC Chairman, as such, does not hold a government office or employment.

Same; Same; Same; Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) is not government-owned but privately
owned.—The PNRC is not government-owned but privately owned. The vast majority of the thousands of
PNRC members are private individuals, including students. Under the PNRC Charter, those who
contribute to the annual fund campaign of the PNRC are entitled to membership in the PNRC for one
year. Thus, any one between 6 and 65 years of age can be a PNRC member for one year upon
contributing P35, P100, P300, P500 or P1,000 for the year. Even foreigners, whether residents or not,
can be members of the PNRC. [Liban vs. Gordon, 593 SCRA 68(2009)]

Liban vs. Gordon, 639 SCRA 709 , January 18, 2011 (MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND/OR FOR
RECONSIDERATION of a decision of the Supreme Court and MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION
of a decision of the Supreme Court)
Corporation Law; Philippine National Red Cross; A closer look at the nature of the Philippine National
Red Cross (PNRC) would show that there is none like it not just in terms of structure, but also in terms
of history, public service and official status.—The passage of several laws relating to the PNRC’s
corporate existence notwithstanding the effectivity of the constitutional proscription on the creation of
private corporations by law, is a recognition that the PNRC is not strictly in the nature of a private
corporation contemplated by the aforesaid constitutional ban. A closer look at the nature of the PNRC
would show that there is none like it not just in terms of structure, but also in terms of history, public
service and official status accorded to it by the State and the international community. There is merit in
PNRC’s contention that its structure is sui generis.

Same; Same; The sui generis character of Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) requires us to approach
controversies involving the PNRC on a case-to-case basis.—Although it is neither a subdivision, agency,
or instrumentality of the government, nor a government-owned or controlled corporation or a subsidiary
thereof, as succinctly explained in the Decision of July 15, 2009, so much so that respondent, under the
Decision, was correctly allowed to hold his position as Chairman thereof concurrently while he served as
a Senator, such a conclusion does not ipso facto imply that the PNRC is a “private corporation” within
the contemplation of the provision of the Constitution, that must be organized under the Corporation
Code. As correctly mentioned by Justice Roberto A. Abad, the sui generis character of PNRC requires us
to approach controversies involving the PNRC on a case-to-case basis.

Same; Same; The Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) has responded to almost all national disasters
since 1947, and is widely known to provide a substantial portion of the country’s blood requirements.—
It bears emphasizing that the PNRC has responded to almost all national disasters since 1947, and is
widely known to provide a substantial portion of the country’s blood requirements. Its humanitarian
work is unparalleled. The Court should not shake its existence to the core in an untimely and drastic
manner that would not only have negative consequences to those who depend on it in times of disaster
and armed hostilities but also have adverse effects on the image of the Philippines in the international
community. The sections of the PNRC Charter that were declared void must therefore stay. [Liban vs.
Gordon, 639 SCRA 709(2011)]