Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Mendoza vs. Allas

    Uploaded by

    Harvey Sebastian Specter
    17 views1 page
    This case discusses the writ of quo warranto and whether it binds successors in office. The Supreme Court held that: 1) A quo warranto judgment does not bind a successor in office, even if the successor's title derives from the same source as the respondent, because quo warranto is directed at the person, not the officer. 2) Here, the quo warranto petition was only against respondent Allas, not against the new Director III, Olores. 3) Therefore, the CA properly denied the motion for execution seeking to reinstate petitioner as Director III, since the current office holder, Olores, was not a party in the quo warranto case.

    Original Description:

    Mendoza vs Allas case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case discusses the writ of quo warranto and whether it binds successors in office. The Supreme Court held that: 1) A quo warranto judgment does not bind a successor in office, even if the successor's title derives from the same source as the respondent, because quo warranto is directed at the person, not the officer. 2) Here, the quo warranto petition was only against respondent Allas, not against the new Director III, Olores. 3) Therefore, the CA properly denied the motion for execution seeking to reinstate petitioner as Director III, since the current office holder, Olores, was not a party in the quo warranto case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    17 views1 page

    Mendoza vs. Allas

    Uploaded by

    Harvey Sebastian Specter
    This case discusses the writ of quo warranto and whether it binds successors in office. The Supreme Court held that: 1) A quo warranto judgment does not bind a successor in office, even if the successor's title derives from the same source as the respondent, because quo warranto is directed at the person, not the officer. 2) Here, the quo warranto petition was only against respondent Allas, not against the new Director III, Olores. 3) Therefore, the CA properly denied the motion for execution seeking to reinstate petitioner as Director III, since the current office holder, Olores, was not a party in the quo warranto case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    42 – Mendoza vs.

    Allas (1999)
    Ratio Decidendi
    Doctrine: NO. The CA did not err in denying the execution of the RTC decision because
    The writ of quo warranto is never directed to an officer as such, but always such decision was only against respondent Allas. The petition for quo
    against the person - to determine whether he is constitutionally and legally warranto was filed by petitioner solely against respondent Allas. What was
    authorized to perform or exercise any function of the office to which he lays threshed out before the trial court was the qualification and right of
    claim. petitioner to the contested position as against respondent Ray Allas, not
    Relevant Facts against respondent Olores.
    Petitioner Mendoza was appointed as the Customs Service Chief, later
    reclassified as Director III, in the Customs Intelligence and Investigation Ordinarily, a judgment against a public officer in regard to a public right
    Service of the Bureau of Customs. When he was temporarily designated as binds his successor in office. This rule, however, is not applicable in quo
    Acting District Collector in Cagayan de Oro City, respondent Allas was warranto cases. A judgment in quo warranto does not bind the respondent's
    appointed as "Acting Director III" of the CIIS. Despite this, he still received successor in office, even though such successor may trace his title to the
    the salary and benefits of the position of Director III. However, he was same source. This follows from the nature of the writ of quo warranto itself.
    terminated due to the appointment of Allas as Director III by President It is never directed to an officer as such, but always against the person-- to
    Ramos. determine whether he is constitutionally and legally authorized to perform
    any act in, or exercise any function of the office to which he lays claim.
    Petitioner filed a petition for quo warranto against respondent Allas which
    was granted by the RTC. The RTC found that, because petitioner was illegally
    terminated, he was deemed not to have vacated his office hence the
    appointment of Allas to the same office was void. The court ordered the
    ouster of Allas and at the same time directed the reinstatement of
    petitioner with payment of full back salaries and other benefits.

    Allas appealed to the CA but while such case was pending, he was promoted
    as Deputy Commissioner and as such, his appeal was dismissed for being
    moot. Respondent Mendoza then filed for a Motion of Execution of the RTC
    decision but this was denied by the RTC and subsequently the CA because
    the position is now being held by respondent Olores who was not a party to
    the quo warranto petition.

    Petitioner now contends that he should have been reinstated despite


    respondent Olores' appointment his removal was illegal and he was deemed
    never to have vacated his office. As respondent Allas' appointment was null
    and void, this nullity should extend to respondent Olores, his successor-in-
    interest.

    Issue
    W/N the Motion of Execution should have been granted by the CA to
    reinstate petitioner to the position of Director III

    You might also like