RULE 66 – QUO WARRANTO
NO. CASE FACTS
1 EN BANC   Respondent claims denial of due process because her
case was allegedly not heard by an impartial tribunal.
June 19, 2018 She reiterates that the six (6) Justices ought to have
inhibited themselves on the grounds of actual bias, of
having personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary
G.R. No. 237428
facts, and of having acted as a material witness in the
matter in controversy. Respondent also argues denial of
REPUBLIC of the due process when the Court supposedly took notice of
PHILIPPINES, extraneous matters as corroborative evidence and when
represented by the Court based its main Decision on facts without
SOLICITOR observing the mandatory procedure for reception of
GENERAL JOSE C. evidence.
CALIDA, Petitioner
vs.
She reiterates her arguments that the Court is without
MARIA LOURDES
jurisdiction to oust an impeachable officer through quo
P.A. SERENO,
warranto; that the official acts of the Judicial and Bar
Respondent
Council (JBC) and the President involves political
questions that cannot be annulled absent any allegation
TIJAM, J.:
of grave abuse of discretion; that the petition for quo
warranto is time-barred; and that respondent was and is
a person of proven integrity.
By way of Comment, the Republic of the Philippines
(Republic), through the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG), seeks a denial of respondent's motion for
reconsideration for being proforma. In any case, the
OSG argues that respondent's motion lacks merit as
there was no denial of due process and that quo
warranto is the appropriate remedy to oust an ineligible
impeachable officer. The OSG adds that the issue of
whether respondent is a person of proven integrity is
justiciable considering that the decision-making powers
of the JBC are limited by judicially discoverable
standards. Undeviating from its position, the OSG
maintains that the petition is not time-barred as Section
11, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court does not apply to the
State and that the peculiar circumstances of the instant
case preclude the strict application of the prescriptive
period.
ISSUE RULING
Whether or not the YES.
Quo Warranto
petition is the proper The Court reaffirms its authority to decide the
remedy to remove a instant quo warranto action. This authority is
sitting Justice of the expressly conferred on the Supreme Court by
Supreme Court the Constitution under Section 5, Article VIII
which states that:
(Note: SC voted 9-5)
Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the
following powers:
1. Exercise original jurisdiction over cases
affecting ambassadors, other public ministers
and consuls, and over petitions
for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,  quo  war
ranto, and habeas corpus.
x x x x (Emphasis ours)
Section 5 of Article VIII does not limit the
Court's quo warranto jurisdiction only to certain
public officials or that excludes impeachable
officials therefrom. In Sarmiento v. Mison, 4 the
Court ruled:
The task of the Court is rendered lighter by the
existence of relatively clear provisions in the
Constitution. In cases like this, we follow what
the Court, speaking through Mr. Justice (later,
Chief Justice) Jose Abad Santos stated
in Gold Creek Mining Corp. v. Rodriguez, that:
The fundamental principle of constitutional
construction is to give effect to the intent of the
framers of the organic law and of the people
adopting it. The intention to which force is to
be given is that which is embodied and
expressed in the constitutional provisions
PROVREM DOCTRINE
MENTIONED
Distinction between Quo
Warranto and Impeachment:
Quo warranto and impeachment
are two distinct proceedings,
although both may result in the
ouster of a public officer. Strictly
speaking, quo warranto grants the
relief of "ouster", while
impeachment affords "removal."
A quo warranto proceeding is the
proper legal remedy to determine
a person's right or title to a public
office and to oust the holder from
its enjoyment. It is the proper
action to inquire into a public
officer's eligibility or the validity of
his appointment. Under Rule 66
of the Rules of Court, a quo
warranto proceeding involves a
judicial determination of the right
to the use or exercise of the
office.
Impeachment, on the other hand,
is a political process undertaken
by the legislature to determine
whether the public officer
committed any of the
impeachable offenses, namely,
culpable violation of the
Constitution, treason, bribery,
graft and corruption, other high
crimes, or betrayal of public
trust. It does not ascertain the
officer's eligibility for appointment
or election, or challenge the
legality of his assumption of
office. Conviction for any of the
Page 1 of 6
 RULE 66 – QUO WARRANTO
NO. CASE FACTS ISSUE RULING PROVREM DOCTRINE
MENTIONED

themselves. impeachable offenses shall result

in the removal of the impeachable
The Constitution defines judicial power as a official from office. 
"duty" to be performed by the courts of
justice. Thus, for the Court to repudiate its own
jurisdiction over this case would be to abdicate
a constitutionally imposed responsibility.

As the Court pointed out in its Decision, this is

not the first time the Court took cognizance of
a quo warranto petition against an
impeachable officer. In the consolidated cases
of Estrada v. Macapagal-Arroyo7 and Estrada
v. Desierto, the Court assumed jurisdiction
over a quo warranto petition that challenged
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's title to the
presidency.

Arguing that the aforesaid cases cannot serve

as precedent for the Court to take cognizance
of this case, respondent makes it appear that
they involved a totally different issue, one that
concerned Joseph E. Estrada's immunity from
suit, specifically: "Whether conviction in the
impeachment proceedings is a condition
precedent for the criminal prosecution of
petitioner Estrada. In the negative and on the
assumption that petitioner is still President,
whether he is immune from criminal
prosecution."

SECOND DIVISION Respondents Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc. Whether or not Quo YES.
(CBS) and People’s Broadcasting Service, Inc. (PBS) Warranto is the
G.R. No. 162272       are radio networks both involved in the operation of proper remedy to Under Section 1 of Rule 66, "an action for the
April 7, 2009 radio broadcasting services in the Philippines, they cancel a grantee’s usurpation of a public office, position or
being the grantees of legislative franchises. legislative franchise franchise may be brought in the name of the
SANTIAGO C. Republic of the Philippines against a person

Page 2 of 6
 RULE 66 – QUO WARRANTO
NO. CASE FACTS
Following the enactment of these franchise laws, NTC
DIVINAGRACIA, Pe issued Provisional Authorities allowing them to install,
titioner, operate and maintain various AM and FM broadcast
vs. stations in various locations throughout the nation.
CONSOLIDATED
BROADCASTING Petitioner Santiago C. Divinagracia, alleging that he was
SYSTEM, INC. and a stockholder of respondent companies, filed two
PEOPLE'S complaints with the NTC alleging that despite the
BROADCASTING provisions of the law mandating the public offering of at
SERVICE, least 30% of the common stocks of Respondents, both
INC., Respondents. entities had failed to make such offering. Petitioner
prayed for the cancellation of all the Provisional
Authorities or CPCs of Respondents.
TINGA, J.:
The NTC dismissed both complaints, positing that
although it had full jurisdiction to revoke or cancel a
Provisional Authority or CPC for violations or infractions
of the terms and conditions, it refrained from exercising
the same. The NTC ruled that it was not competent to
render a ruling on that issue, the same being more
properly the subject of an action for quo warranto to be
commenced by the Solicitor General in the name of the
Republic of the Philippines, pursuant to Rule 66 of the
Rules of Court.
G.R. No. 16887 The petitioner in this case, the suspended municipal
November 17, 1920 president of Pasay, Rizal, seeks by these proceedings
- MIGUEL R. in mandamus to have the provincial governor and the
ISSUE RULING PROVREM DOCTRINE
MENTIONED
who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds
or exercises public office, position or
franchise." Even while the action is maintained
in the name of the Republic, the Solicitor
General or a public prosecutor is obliged to
commence such action upon complaint, and
upon good reason to believe that any case
specified under Section 1 of Rule 66 can be
established by proof.
The special civil action of 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. It is settled that "[t]he determination
of the right to the exercise of a franchise, or
whether the right to enjoy such privilege has
been forfeited by non-user, is more properly
the subject of the prerogative writ of quo
warranto, the right to assert which, as a rule,
belongs to the State ‘upon complaint or
otherwise,’ the reason being that the abuse of
a franchise is a public wrong and not a private
injury." A forfeiture of a franchise will have to
be declared in a direct proceeding for the
purpose brought by the State because a
franchise is granted by law and its unlawful
exercise is primarily a concern of
Government. Quo warranto is specifically
available as a remedy if it is thought that a
government corporation has offended against
its corporate charter or misused its franchise.
It is beyond dispute that quo warranto  exists as
an available and appropriate remedy against
the wrong imputed on private respondents.
NOTE: No mention Differentiate mandamus vs. quo warranto?
of Quo Warranto in
this case A quo warranto proceeding is brought against
Page 3 of 6
 RULE 66 – QUO WARRANTO
NO. CASE FACTS
CORNEJO v. provincial board of the Province of Rizal temporarily
ANDRES GABRIEL restrained from going ahead with investigation of the
charges filed against him pending resolution of the case,
041 Phil 188 and to have an order issue directed to the provincial
governor commanding him to return the petitioner to his
position as municipal president of Pasay. The members
of the provincial board have interposed a demurrer
based on the ground that this court has no right to keep
them from complying with the provisions of the law.
The provincial governor has filed an answer to the
petition, in which he alleges as a special defense that
numerous complaints have been received by him
against the conduct of Miguel R. Cornejo, municipal
president of Pasay; that these complaints were
investigated by him; that he came to the conclusion that
agreeable to the powers conferred upon provincial
governors, the municipal president should be
temporarily suspended, and that an investigation is now
being conducted by the provincial board.
SECOND DIVISION This case is about the right of the petitioner to be
reinstated through an action for quo warranto against
G.R. No. 184980       the present holder meantime that petitioner has
March 30, 2011 appealed from the Ombudsman’s decision dismissing
him from the service for, among other grounds,
misconduct in office.
DANILO
MORO, Petitioner,
The Ombudsman charged respondent Generoso Reyes
vs.
Del Castillo, Jr. (Del Castillo), then Chief Accountant of
GENEROSO
the General Headquarters (GHQ) Accounting Center of
REYES DEL
the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), with
CASTILLO,
dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to
JR., Respondent.
the best interest of the service. The Ombudsman
alleged that Del Castillo made false statements in his
ABAD, J.: Statement of Assets and Liabilities from 1996 to 2004
and that he acquired properties manifestly out of
proportion to his reported salary.
The Ombudsman placed Del Castillo under preventive
suspension for six months and eventually ordered his
ISSUE RULING PROVREM DOCTRINE
MENTIONED
the holder of the office, who is the person
claiming the office as against the petitioner. In
mandamus, the suit is brought against the
person who is responsible for unlawfully
excluding the petitioner from office, like an
appointing authority.
MANDAMUS is also available when one is
unlawfully excluded from the use or enjoyment
of an office. While it is similar to a quo
warranto proceeding in this respect, in
MANDAMUS, the suit is brought against the
person who is responsible for unlawfully
excluding the petitioner from office. The
RESPONDENT here does not usurp, intrude
into or hold the office.
Whether or not NO. In quo warranto, the petitioner
respondent Del who files the action in his name
Castillo is entitled to An action for quo warranto under Rule 66 of must prove that he is entitled to
be restored to the the Rules of Court may be filed against one the subject public office.
position of Chief who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds Otherwise, the person who holds
Accountant of the or exercises a public office. It may be brought the same has a right to
GHQ Accounting by the Republic of the Philippines or by the undisturbed possession and the
Center that he once person claiming to be entitled to such office. In action for quo warranto may be
held this case, it was Del Castillo who filed the dismissed.
action, claiming that he was entitled as a
matter of right to reassume the position of
GHQ Chief Accountant after his preventive
suspension ended on March 11, 2007. He
argues that, assuming his reassignment to the
PAF Accounting Center was valid, the same
could not exceed one year. Since his detail at
the PAF took effect under SO 91 on April 1,
2006, it could last not later than March 31,
2007. By then, Moro should have allowed him
to return to his previous posting as GHQ Chief
Page 4 of 6
 RULE 66 – QUO WARRANTO
NO. CASE FACTS
dismissal from the service on February 5, 2007. The
penalty imposed on him included cancellation of
eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual
disqualification from reemployment in the government.
Del Castillo filed a motion for reconsideration, which is
pending to this date.
Following the lapse of his six-month suspension Del
Castillo attempted to reassume his former post of GHQ
Chief Accountant. But, he was unable to do so since
Moro declined to yield the position. Consequently, Del
Castillo filed a petition for quo warranto against Moro
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City.
ISSUE RULING PROVREM DOCTRINE
MENTIONED
Accountant.
Here, Del Castillo brought the action for quo
warranto in his name on April 4, 2007, months
after the Ombudsman ordered his dismissal
from service on February 5, 2007. As
explained above, that dismissal order was
immediately executory even pending appeal.
Consequently, he has no right to pursue the
action for quo warranto or reassume the
position of Chief Accountant of the GHQ
Accounting Center.

Del Castillo claimed that Moro was merely detailed as

GHQ Chief Accountant when the Ombudsman placed
Del Castillo under preventive suspension. Since the
latter’s period of suspension already lapsed, he was
entitled to resume his former post and Moro was but a
usurper.

For his part, Moro pointed out in his Answer6 that his

appointment under SO 91 as GHQ Chief Accountant
was a permanent appointment. Indeed, the GHQ had
already reassigned Del Castillo to the PAF Accounting
Center even before the Ombudsman placed him under
preventive suspension. Del Castillo was, therefore, not
automatically entitled to return to his former GHQ post
despite the lapse of his suspension.

RA 8799 – Securities Regulation Code

Section 5. Powers and Functions of the Commission.– 5.1. The commission shall act with transparency and shall have the powers and functions provided by this code,
Presidential Decree No. 902-A, the Corporation Code, the Investment Houses law, the Financing Company Act and other existing laws. Pursuant thereto the Commission shall
have, among others, the following powers and functions:

Page 5 of 6
RULE 66 – QUO WARRANTO
5.2. The Commission’s jurisdiction over all cases enumerated under section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A is hereby transferred to the Courts of general jurisdiction or the
appropriate Regional Trial Court: Provided, That the Supreme Court in the exercise of its authority may designate the Regional Trial Court branches that shall exercise jurisdiction
over the cases. The Commission shall retain jurisdiction over pending cases involving intra-corporate disputes submitted for final resolution which should be resolved within one (1)
year from the enactment of this Code. The Commission shall retain jurisdiction over pending suspension of payment/rehabilitation cases filed as of 30 June 2000 until finally
disposed.

ARTICLE XI

ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from
office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other
public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.

ARTICLE VIII

Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,  quo warranto,
and habeas corpus.

Page 6 of 6