REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,

REPRESENTED BY SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C. CALIDA, Petitioner,

versus-
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 237428, EN BANC, June 19, 2018, TIJAM, J.

(II. Jurisdiction – Classification - Exclusive vs. Concurrent)

By: Abne-Constantino, Denah, Shiela Mae M.

  The RP of the Philippines, represented by then OSG Chief Calida,
filed a Petition for the issuance of the extraordinary writ of
quo warranto to declare Respondent Sereno’s appointment as
Chief Justice of the SC void and to oust and altogether exclude her
FACTS: therefrom on the ground that she is ineligible for the position for
lack of proven integrity, as required by the Constitution, manifested
by her non-compliance in the submission of SALN.

 Hence the Republic concluded that since respondent is ineligible

for the position of Chief Justice for lack of proven integrity due to
non-compliance in the submission of the required SALN, she has no
right to hold office and may therefore be ousted via quo warranto.
 ISSUE:

 Whether the Court’s

jurisdiction over the instant
petition for quo warranto,
exclusive or concurrent.
RULING:
 CONCURRENT.

 The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over an action for quo
warranto.

 Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution, in part, provides

that the Supreme Court shall exercise original jurisdiction over
petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and
habeas corpus. This Court, the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial
Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary writs,
including quo warranto.

 Relatedly, Section 7, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court provides

that the venue of an action for quo warranto, when commenced by
the Solicitor General, is either the Regional Trial Court in the
City of Manila, in the Court of Appeals, or in the Supreme Court.

 While the hierarchy of courts serves as a general determinant of

the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs, a direct
invocation of the SC’s original jurisdiction in this case is allowed when
there are special and important reasons therefor. In this case, direct
resort to the Supreme Court is justified considering that the
action for quo warranto questions the qualification of no less
than a Member of the Court. The issue of whether a person usurps,
intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office is a
matter of public concern over which the government takes special
interest as it obviously cannot allow an intruder or impostor to occupy
a public position.