Cruz vs.

Ramos
84 Phil 226 (1949)

Fact:

The Elected Six member of the Municipal Board of the City of Manila in the
1947 election and 4 others namely Garcia, Santanaria, arenas and balagtas who
are not a parties of this case where to compose the 10 members of the Municipal
board of City of Manila which expired the term on December 2051, 1 vacancy was
created to appoint Balagtas as the director of prison. On June 1949, The President
appointed the respondent Ramos, Monleon, and Villaceran as members of the
municipal board of the city of Manila to fill the vacancy caused by the
appointment of Balagtas, and two new additional position created by R.A. 409
which increased the congressional district of the city of manila from 2 to 4 , and
the membership be composed from 10 to 12 of the municipal board of manila.
The petitioner alleged that it was unconstitutional since Congress authorized by
law to appropriate the districts by a general law and not by piecemeal legislation.
It further avers that at least 2 or more are illegally usurping, intruding into, and or
holding or exercising the rights and privileges and discharging the duties
exclusively to the elected municipal board of the city of Manila. The
unconstitutional appointment made to the respondent increased the majority to
constitute a quorum is a violation of constitutional Law. Respondent in reply,
contends the petitioners have no legal capacity to bring the action and the action
must be brought to the office of the solicitor general or fiscal in the name of the
Republic of the Philippines. In Addition, the respondents are lawfully holding the
office in question as duly appointed by the President of the Philippine and The
republic act 409 in question is constitutional.

Issue:
Whether or not the writ of Quo Warranto be granted to petitioner.

Held
NO. Petitioner has no cause of action. The petitioner do not claim to be entitled
to the public office as alleged to be unlawfully held or exercised by the
respondents. Respondents cannot claim that they have been supplanted by the
petitioners. The Petition is without merit since the elected councilors had the
absolute and exclusive right to the membership of the board. The increase of
membership from 10 to 12 and the quorum from 6 to 7 does not diminish
petitioners' rights and prerogatives as members of the board. Indeed, they can
express their individual opinion and cast their individual votes. Aneth to the issue
of the constitutionality of R.A. 409 it is not necessary to pass upon the court.