G.R. No.

175352 July 15, 2009

DANTE V. LIBAN, REYNALDO M. BERNARDO, and SALVADOR M. VIARI, petitioners,

vs.

RICHARD J. GORDON, respondent.

DOCTRINE/TOPIC: Legislative; Quo Warranto; Judicial Review

FACTS:

Petitioners Dante V. Liban, Reynaldo M. Bernardo, and Salvador M. Viari (petitioners) filed with
this Court a Petition to Declare Richard J. Gordon as Having Forfeited His Seat in the Senate. Petitioners
are officers of the Board of Directors of the Quezon City Red Cross Chapter while respondent Gordon is
Chairman of the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) Board of Governors.

Petitioner assail their prayers under the following arguments:

1. Gordon is elected Chairman of the PNRC on February 23, 2006 and his acceptance of the
position would have ceased his position as member of the Senate under ARTICLE VI SECTION 13
of the 1987 Constitution, which provides:

SEC. 13. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other
office or employment in the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries,
during his term without forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be appointed to any office
which may have been created or the emoluments thereof increased during the term for
which he was elected.

2. In the case of Camporedondo v. NLRC, the Court ruled that PNRC is a government-owned or
controlled corporation, hence his acceptance immediately results to an automatic forfeiture of
respondent’s Senatorial seat.
3. In pursuant to Flores v. Drilon, it was held that incumbent national legislators lose their elective
posts upon their appointment to another government office.

In his Comment, respondent asserts that the petitioners cannot file for Quo Warranto petition since
Under Section 5, Rule 66 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, only a person claiming to be entitled to a
public office usurped or unlawfully held by another may bring an action for quo warranto in his own
name. Section 11 of same Rule orders for the action to be filed within one year after the cause of the
public officer’s forfeiture of office arises. Since respondent has been a Chairman of the PNRC Board of
Governors in 2003 and re-elected in 2005, and he was elected as Senator in May 2004, then the petition
is already barred by prescription.

Respondent further insists that the PNRC is not a government-owned or controlled corporation and that
the prohibition under Section 13, Article VI of the Constitution does not apply in the present case since
volunteer service to the PNRC is neither an office nor an employment.
ISSUE:

1. WON PNRC is a government-owned or controlled corporation that falls under ARTICLE VI

SECTION 13 of the 1987 Constitution.
2. WON Section 13, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution applies to this case regarding Gordon’s
Senatorial seat and position in the PNRC.
3. WON Petitioners have the right to file this petition

RULING:

1. NO. The Court rules the PNRC as sui generis, neither strictly a GOCC nor a private corporation.
“The PNRC is a non-profit, donor-funded, voluntary, humanitarian organization, whose mission is
to bring timely, effective, and compassionate humanitarian assistance for the most vulnerable
without consideration of nationality, race, religion, gender, social status, or political affiliation.”

It is in recognition of this sui generis character of the PNRC that R.A. No. 95 has remained valid and
effective from the time of its enactment in March 22, 1947 under the 1935 Constitution and during the
effectivity of the 1973 Constitution and the 1987 Constitution. To ensure and maintain its autonomy,
neutrality, and independence, the PNRC cannot be owned or controlled by the government. Indeed, the
Philippine government does not own the PNRC. The PNRC does not have government assets and does
not receive any appropriation from the Philippine Congress as it is financed primarily through private
contributions obtained through solicitation campaigns organized by its Board of Directors.

The Geneva Convention in 1929 has the force and effect of law, and with this, it should be followed that
the PNRC has the special status under international humanitarian law and as an auxiliary of the State, is
designated to assist it in discharging its obligations under the Geneva Conventions. 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.

2. NO. Because said PNRC is not a GOCC, then respondent does not violate ARTICLE VI SECTION 13
of the 1987 Constitution.
3. NO. 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.

Even if the Court disregards the infirmities of the petition and treats it as a taxpayer's suit, the petition
would still fail on the merits due to lack of damage or threatened injury on the petitioners’ part and
taxpayers are only allowed to sue when there is a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds, or that
public money is being diverted to any improper purpose, or where petitioners seek to restrain
respondent from enforcing an invalid law that results in wastage of public funds.

NOTES:
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 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. (Emphasis supplied)

*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.

Classification of GOCC:

A government-owned or controlled corporation must be owned by the government, and in the case of a
stock corporation, at least a majority of its capital stock must be owned by the government. In the case
of a non-stock corporation, by analogy at least a majority of the members must be government officials
holding such membership by appointment or designation by the government. Under this criterion, and
as discussed earlier, the government does not own or control PNRC.