MENDOZA vs. LAXINA, SR.

GR No. 146875, July 14, 2003

Ynares-Santiago, J.

DOCTRINE:

An oath of office is a qualifying requirement for a public office; a prerequisite to the full
investiture with the office. It is only when the public officer has satisfied the prerequisite of oath that his
right to enter into the position becomes plenary and complete. However, once proclaimed and duly
sworn in office, a public officer is entitled to assume office and to exercise the functions thereof.

FACTS:

On May 27, 1997, Laxina took his oath and thereafter assumed office as the duly proclaimed and elected
barangay captain of Brgy. Batasan Hills, Quezon City, in the 1997 Barangay Elections. Meanwhile, Roque
Fermo, his rival candidate, filed an election protest with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City,
Branch 40. On January 18, 1999, Fermo was declared as the winner in the Barangay Elections.
Respondent vacated the position and relinquished the same to Fermo. Thereafter, Laxina filed a petition
with the COMELEC questioning the January 20, 1999 order of the trial court.

The COMELEC issued a writ of execution directing Fermo to vacate the office of Barangay Chairman of
Barangay Batasan Hills. Fermo refused to vacate the premises of the barangay hall of Batasan Hills.
Laxina and his staff started discharging their functions and holding office at the SK-Hall of Batasan Hills.
Laxina took his oath of office as Barangay Captain of Batasan Hills, Quezon City.

Petitioner barangay councilors filed with the Quezon City Council a complaint for violation of the anti-
graft and corrupt practices act and falsification of legislative documents against respondent and all other
barangay officials who signed the questioned resolution and payroll. They contended that defendants
made it appear in the payroll that he and his appointees rendered services starting November 8, 1999
when, in truth, they commenced to serve only on November 17, 1999 after respondent took his oath
and assumed the office of barangay chairman.

Petitioners argued that respondent failed to exhaust administrative remedies and the trial court has no
jurisdiction over the case because appeals from the decision of the City Council should be brought to the
Office of the President. The Quezon City Council found Laxina guilty of grave misconduct and suspended
him for two months. RTC reversed the ruling of the City Council.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not respondent failed to exhaust all the administrative remedies available to him.

2. Whether or not the taking of an oath of office by a duly proclaimed but subsequently unseated local
elective official a condition sine qua non to the validity of his re-assumption in office.
HELD:

1. Yes. Under Section 68 of the LGC, an appeal shall not prevent a decision from being final and
executory. The respondent shall be considered as having been placed under preventive suspension
during the pendency of an appeal in the event that he wins such appeal. In the event the appeal results
in an exoneration, he shall be paid his salary and such other emoluments during the pendency of the
appeal.

Before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition that he should have
availed of all the means of administrative processes afforded him. The doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies calls for resort first to the appropriate administrative authorities in the
resolution of a controversy falling under their jurisdiction before the same may be elevated to the
courts of justice for review. Non-observance of the doctrine results in lack of a cause of action, which is
one of the grounds allowed by the Rules of Court for the dismissal of the complaint.

2. No. The re-taking of his oath of office on November 16, 1999 was a mere formality considering that
his oath taken on May 27, 1997 operated as a full investiture on him of the rights of the office. Hence,
the taking anew of his oath of office as Barangay Captain of Batasan Hills, Quezon City was not a
condition sine qua non to the validity of his re-assumption in office and to the exercise of the functions
thereof. The pendency of an election protest is not sufficient basis to enjoin him from assuming office or
from discharging his functions. Laxina was proclaimed as the winner in the 1997 Barangay Elections in
Batasan Hills, Quezon City; he took his oath on May 27, 1997 and thereafter assumed office. He is
therefore vested with all the rights to discharge the functions of his office. Laxina exercised the powers
and functions thereof at the SK-Hall of Batasan Hills, Quezon City starting October 28, 1999 when the
writ of execution ordering Fermo to desist from performing the function of the Office of Barangay
Captain was served.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C. CALIDA

Vs. ABS-CBN CORPORATION

GR No. 251358, February 10, 2020

DOCTRINE:

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 the
Government. Quo warranto is specifically available as a remedy if it is thought that a corporation has
offended against its corporate charter or misused its franchise.

FACTS:

On June 14, 1950, Congress passed RA No. 511 granting Bolinao Electronics Corporation a temporary
permit to construct, maintain, and operate stations for international telecommunication and stations for
television in the Philippines. In 1952, BEC adopted the business name Alto Broadcasting System (ABS)
and launched as the country’s first television broadcast in 1953.

On June 16, 1955, Congress passed RA No. 1343 granting Manila Chronicle a permit to construct,
maintain, and operate radio broadcasting stations and stations for television in the Philippines. In 1957,
Chronicle Broadcasting (CBN) owned by Don Eugenio Lopez, Jr. acquired ABS. In 1967, the operations of
ABS and CBN were integrated, and the corporate name was changed to ABS-CBN Corporation.

On June 21, 1969, Congress approved RA No 5730 granting ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation a
franchise to construct, maintain and operate station for international telecommunications and stations
for television, and RA No. 5731, franchise to construct, maintain and operate radio broadcasting stations
in the Philippines both for a period of fifty years. In 1995, Congress passed RA No. 7966 granting ABS-
CBN its legislative franchise with a term of twenty-five years.

On October 15, 2010, ABS-CBN Corporation acquired PCCI Equities, Inc. its subscription rights over
250,000 shares in Sapientis Holding Corporation and became a wholly-owned subsidiary of ABS-
CBN. On March 5, 2015, ABS-CBN Corporation entered into a merger with its wholly-owned subsidiaries,
which included Sapientis.

In the meantime, ABS-CBN Convergence, Inc. signed a five-year network sharing agreement with Globe
Telecom in 2013, in which it created a new telephone brand, the ABS-CBN Mobile. It had its own prepaid
and postpaid voice, SMS, and mobile broadband services. The network sharing deal was approved by the
NTC on June 7, 2013.

The SEC issued a Certificate of Filing Amended Articles of Incorporation in favor of ABS-CBN Convergence
and uses Multi-Media Telephony’s franchise without congressional approval. To this date, ABS-CBN
Convergence has not publicly offered any of its outstanding capital stock to any securities exchange
within the Philippines.

In its Amended Annual Report for 2012 submitted to the Sec, ABS-CBN Corporation disclosed that it had
invested or advanced 49% of equity interest or ownership in Amcara, which ABS-CBN Corporation
considers as one of its subsidiaries. It also revealed that the remaining carrying value of investments in
Amacra amounted to P41 million as of December 31, 2012 and 2011.

In 2015, ABS-CBN Corporation officially introduced and launched a digital broadcasting business called
ABS-CBN TV Plus, which distributes digital set-top boxes with premium and free-to-air digital channels
(such as the ABS-CBN Kapamilya Network, and pay-per-view services) to selected areas in the
Philippines. Thereafter, in March 2016, ABS-CBN Corporation launched a pay-per-view channel in ABS-
CBN TV plus, the Kapamilya Box Office (KBO). The Filipinos may choose to access to access premium
content from their television sets that can be currently activated through SMS for a fee of P30.00 to
P99.00.

On April 1, 2015, ABS-CBN Corporation wrote a letter to NTC informing the latter of its plan to offer free-
to-air viewers and those who will purchase the ABS-CBN TV Plus the option to watch the Pacquiao-
Mayweather Match live through pay-per-view on Digital Terrestrial TV (DTT) for P2,500.00. Under Sec 3
of RA No. 7966, the respondent is required to secure prior authority from NTC before it uses any
frequency in the television or radio spectrum.
In a letter dated April 28, 2015, NTC directed ABS-CBN Corporation “to refrain from offering any pay
television service in its DTT trials until such time that the Commission has come up with appropriate
guidelines for the same.” Nevertheless, without NTC issuing any guidelines and ABS-CBN Corporation
securing any permit, on April 18, 2016, ABS-CBN offered live viewing, offered pay-per-view boxing
through KBO, advertised Holy Week Special, and concerts aired live on the same channel.

As of February 2019, despite the absence of any permit from NTC and guidelines on conditional access,
the KBO Channel inveigled 1.2 million unique TV Plus consumers to register in the service.

ISSUE:

Is Quo Warranto the proper remedy to forfeit the franchise of Respondents ABS-CBN Corporation and
ABS-CBN Convergence, Inc. for gross violation of their franchises.

RULING:

Yes. Under Sec 1 of Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, “an action for the usurpation of a public office, position
or franchise may be brought in the name of the Republic of the Philippines against a person who usurps,
intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises public office, position or franchise. The special civil action
of quo warranto is 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.

The franchises of ABS-CBN Corporation and ABS-CBN Convergence have to be revoked for the gross
violations they have committed. 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 the Government. Quo warranto is specifically available as a remedy if it is thought
that a corporation has offended against its corporate charter or misused its franchise.

It is beyond cavil that a “franchise” is a “special privilege.” As a grant of the government, not only is a
franchise a “special” privilege; it is also a privilege of “public concern”. As a public concern, a franchise
has likewise been held to be “reserved for public control and administration” either by the government
directly, or through state agents, subject to rules and regulations attached with the exercise of the
powers of the franchise.

Thus, the Government, represented by the Solicitor General, may file this petition for quo warranto to
obtain a judicial declaration that respondents committed an unlawful exercise of their franchises, and
should therefore forfeit them.