Republic of the Philippines vs

Maria Lourdes Sereno

GR No. 237428, May 23, 2011

Jose Jasper V. Canlas

MPA – 1H
 Maria Lourdes Sereno
• Born on July 2, 1960, in Manila
► FACTS • Bachelor of Laws degree at the
► ISSUES University of the Philippines
► RULING Diliman in 1984
► DECISION • Faculty Member, UP College of
Law (1986-2006)
• Legal Counselor
• Associate Justice (2010–2012)
• Chief Justice (2012–2018)
 Facts
• From 1986 to 2006, Sereno served as a member of the
faculty of the University of the Philippines-College of
► FACTS Law. While being employed at the UP Law, or from
► ISSUES October 2003 to 2006, Sereno was concurrently
► DECISION employed as legal counsel of the Republic in two
international arbitrations known as the PIATCO cases,
and a Deputy Commissioner of the Commissioner on
Human Rights.

• The Human Resources Development Office of UP

certified that there was no record on Sereno’s file of any
permission to engage in limited practice of profession.
 Facts
• Out of her 20 years of employment, only nine (9)
Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN)
► FACTS were on the records of UP HRDO. The Ombudsman
► ISSUES likewise had no record of any SALN filed by Sereno.
► DECISION The (Judicial and Bar Council) JBC has certified to the
existence of one SALN. In sum, for 20 years of service,
11 SALNs were recovered.

• On August 13, 2010, Sereno was appointed by President

Benigno C. Aquino III as Associate Justice and on
August 16, 2010, took her oath of office.
 Facts
• On 2012, the position of Chief Justice was declared
vacant, and the JBC directed the applicants to submit
documents, among which are “all previous SALNs up to
► FACTS
December 31, 2011” for those in the government and
► ISSUES
“SALN as of December 31, 2011” for those from the
► RULING
► DECISION private sector.

• On July 20, 2012, the JBC in its Special En Banc

Meeting,45 deliberated on the candidates for the position
of Chief Justice with incomplete documentary
requirements. In particular, the JBC examined the list of
candidates and their compliance with the required
submission of SALNs.
 Facts
• Sereno expressed in a letter to JBC that since she
resigned from UP Law on 2006 and became a private
► FACTS
practitioner, she was treated as coming from the
► ISSUES
► RULING private sector and only submitted three (3) SALNs or
► DECISION her SALNs from the time she became an Associate
Justice. Sereno likewise added that “considering that
most of her government records in the academe are
more than 15 years old, it is reasonable to consider it
infeasible to retrieve all of those files,” and that the
clearance issued by UP HRDO and CSC should be
taken in her favor.
 Facts
• On July 24, 2012, despite respondent's submission of only 3
SALNs, Atty. Pascual prepared a ReportRe: Documentary
► FACTS Requirements and SALN of candidates for the Position of
► ISSUES Chief Justice of the Philippines wherein respondent was listed
► RULING as applicant No. 14 with an opposite annotation that she had
► DECISION "COMPLETE REQUIREMENTS" and a note stating "Letter
7/23/12 - considering that her government records in the
academe are more than 15 years old, it is reasonable to
consider it infeasible to retrieve all those files.“

• A month after respondent’s acceptance of her nomination, or

on August 24, 2012, Sereno was appointed by then President
Aquino III as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
 Facts
• On August 2017, an impeachment complaint was filed by Atty.
Larry Gadon against Sereno, alleging that Sereno failed to make
► FACTS truthful declarations in her SALNs.
► ISSUES • On February 2018, Atty. Eligio Mallari wrote to the Office of
► RULING the Solicitor General (OSG), requesting that the latter, in
► DECISION representation of the Republic, initiate a quo warranto
proceeding against Sereno.
• The OSG, invoking the Court’s original jurisdiction under
Section 5(1), Article VIII of the Constitution in relation to the
special civil action under Rule 66, the Republic, through the
OSG filed the petition for the issuance of the extraordinary writ
of quo warranto to declare as void Sereno’s appointment as CJ
of the SC and to oust and altogether exclude Sereno therefrom.
► FACTS
► ISSUES
► RULING
► DECISION What is Quo
Warranto?
 Issues
1. Whether the Court can assume jurisdiction and
► FACTS give due course to the instant petition for quo
► ISSUES
warranto against respondent who is an
► DECISION
impeachable officer and against whom an
impeachment complaint has already been filed
with the House of Representatives.
 Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over an action
for quo warranto

► FACTS Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution, in part, provides that the
► ISSUES Supreme Court shall exercise original jurisdiction over petitions for
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus. This
► DECISION
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.
 Issues
2. Whether the petition is outrightly
► FACTS dismissible on the ground of
► ISSUES
► DECISION prescription.
 The Petition is Not Dismissible on the Ground of
Prescription

► FACTS The rules on quo warranto, specifically Section 11, Rule 66,
► ISSUES provides:
► DECISION
Limitations. - Nothing contained in this Rule shall be construed to
authorize an action against a public officer or employee for his
ouster from office unless the same be commenced within one (1)
year after the cause of such ouster, or the right of the petitioner to
hold such office or position, arose; nor to authorize an action for
damages in accordance with the provisions of the next preceding
section unless the same be commenced within one (1) year after
the entry of the judgment establishing the petitioner's right to the
office in question.
 Issues
3. Whether respondent is eligible for the position
► FACTS
of Chief Justice:
► ISSUES
► DECISION a. Whether the determination of a candidate's
eligibility for nomination is the sole and
exclusive function of the JBC and whether such
determination. partakes of the character of a
political question outside the Court's supervisory
and review powers;
 The Court's supervisory authority over the
JBC includes ensuring that the JBC complies
with its own rules
► FACTS
► ISSUES
Section 8(1), Article VIII of the Constitution provides that “A
► DECISION
Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision
of the Supreme Court.” The power of supervision means
“overseeing or the authority of an officer to see to it that the
subordinate officers perform their duties.”
 Issues
3. Whether respondent is eligible for the position
► FACTS
of Chief Justice:
► ISSUES
► DECISION b. Whether respondent failed to file her SALN s
as mandated by the Constitution and required by
the law and its implementing rules and
regulations; and if so, whether the failure to file
SALNs voids the nomination and appointment of
respondent as Chief Justice;
 The Court's supervisory authority over the
JBC includes ensuring that the JBC complies
with its own rules
► FACTS
► ISSUES
Section 17, Article XI of the Constitution states that “A public
► DECISION
officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often
thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under
oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth.” This has likewise
been required by RA 3019 and RA 6713. “Failure to comply”
with the law is a violation of law, a “prima facie evidence of
unexplained wealth, which may result in the dismissal from
service of the public officer.”
 Issues
3. Whether respondent is eligible for the position
of Chief Justice:
► FACTS
► ISSUES
► DECISION c. Whether respondent failed to comply with the
submission of SALNs as required by the JBC;
and if so, whether the failure to submit SALNs to
the JBC voids the nomination and appointment of
respondent as Chief Justice;
 Respondent failed to submit the required
SALNs as to qualify for nomination pursuant
► FACTS to the JBC rules
► ISSUES
► DECISION The JBC required the submission of at least ten SALNs from
those applicants who are incumbent Associate Justices, absent
which, the applicant ought not to have been interviewed, much
less been considered for nomination.
 Issues
3. Whether respondent is eligible for the position
► FACTS
of Chief Justice:
► ISSUES
► DECISION d. In case of a finding that respondent is
ineligible to hold the position of Chief Justice,
whether the subsequent nomination by the JBC
and the appointment by the President cured such
ineligibility.
 Respondent's disposition to commit deliberate
acts and omissions demonstrating dishonesty
► FACTS and lack of forthrightness is discordant with
► ISSUES any claim of integrity
► DECISION
 Issues

► FACTS
4. Whether respondent is a de
► ISSUES
► DECISION
Jure or de facto officer.
 Respondent is a de facto officer
► FACTS removable through quo warranto
► ISSUES
► DECISION
 Decision
The Petition for Quo Warranto is GRANTED.
► FACTS
Respondent Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno is
► ISSUES
found DISQUALIFIED from and is hereby adjudged GUILTY of
► DECISION
UNLAWFULLY HOLDING and EXERCISING the OFFICE OF
THE CHIEF JUSTICE. Accordingly, Respondent Maria Lourdes P.
A. Sereno is OUSTED and EXCLUDED.
End of presentation.