Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and SEC. 3. When Solicitor General or public
whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to prosecutor may commence action with
lack of jurisdiction, or, in other words, where the permission of court. ─ The Solicitor General
power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner or a public prosecutor may, with the
by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must permission of the court in which the action is
be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of to be commenced, bring such an action at
positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty the request and upon the relation of another
enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.18 person; but in such case the officer bringing
it may first require an indemnity for the
expenses and costs of the action in an
The Court appreciates no abuse of discretion, much amount approved by and to be deposited in
less, a grave one, on the part of the OSG in deferring the court by the person at whose request
action on the filing of a quo warranto case until after and upon whose relation the same is
the RTC case has been terminated with finality. A brought. (Italics and emphasis in the original)
decision is not deemed tainted with grave abuse of
discretion simply because the affected party
disagrees with it.19 In the exercise of sound discretion, the Solicitor
General may suspend or turn down the institution of
an action for quo warranto where there are just and
The Solicitor General is the counsel of the valid reasons.21
government, its agencies and instrumentalities, and
its officials or agents. In the discharge of its task, the
Solicitor General must see to it that the best interest Certiorari and Prohibition with respect to Ong
of the government is upheld within the limits set by
law.20 By petitioner’s admission, what is at issue is Ong’s
title to the office of Associate Justice of
The pertinent rules of Rule 66 on quo Sandiganbayan.25 While denominated as a petition for
warranto provide: certiorari and prohibition, the petition partakes of the
nature of a quo warranto proceeding with respect to
Ong, for it effectively seeks to declare null and void
SECTION 1. Action by Government against his appointment as an Associate Justice of the
individuals. – An action for the usurpation of Sandiganbayan for being unconstitutional. While the
a public office, position or franchise may be petition professes to be one for certiorari and
commenced by a verified petition brought in prohibition, petitioner even adverts to a "quo
the name of the Republic of the Philippines warranto" aspect of the petition.27
against:
Being a collateral attack on a public officer’s title, the
(a) A person who usurps, intrudes present petition for certiorari and prohibition must be
into, or unlawfully holds or dismissed.
exercises a public office, position or
franchise;
The title to a public office may not be contested case. Even petitioner clarifies that he is not presently
except directly, by quo warranto proceedings; and it seeking a resolution on Ong’s citizenship, even while
cannot be assailed collaterally,28 even through he acknowledges the uncertainty of Ong’s natural-
mandamus29 or a motion to annul or set aside born citizenship.43
order.30
The present case is different from Kilosbayan
Even if the Court treats the case as one for quo Foundation v. Ermita, given Ong’s actual physical
warranto, the petition is, just the same, dismissible. possession and exercise of the functions of the office
of an Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan, which
A quo warranto proceeding is the proper legal remedy is a factor that sets into motion the de facto doctrine.
to determine the right or title to the contested public
office and to oust the holder from its enjoyment. 33 It is Suffice it to mention that a de facto officer is one who
brought against the person who is alleged to have is in possession of the office and is discharging its
usurped, intruded into, or unlawfully held or exercised duties under color of authority, and by color of
the public office,34 and may be commenced by the authority is meant that derived from an election or
Solicitor General or a public prosecutor, as the case appointment, however irregular or informal, so that
may be, or by any person claiming to be entitled to the incumbent is not a mere volunteer.44 If a person
the public office or position usurped or unlawfully held appointed to an office is subsequently declared
or exercised by another.35 ineligible therefor, his presumably valid appointment
will give him color of title that will confer on him the
Nothing is more settled than the principle, which goes status of a de facto officer.45
back to the 1905 case of Acosta v. Flor,36 reiterated in
the recent 2008 case of Feliciano v. Villasin,37 that for x x x A judge de facto assumes the exercise
a quo warranto petition to be successful, of a part of the prerogative of sovereignty,
the private person suing must show a clear right and the legality of that assumption is open to
to the contested office. In fact, not even a mere the attack of the sovereign power alone.
preferential right to be appointed thereto can lend a Accordingly, it is a well-established principle,
modicum of legal ground to proceed with the action.38 dating back from the earliest period and
repeatedly confirmed by an unbroken current
In the present case, petitioner presented no sufficient of decisions, that the official acts of a de
proof of a clear and indubitable franchise to the office facto judge are just as valid for all purposes
of an Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan. He in as those of a de jure judge, so far as the
fact concedes that he was never entitled to assume public or third persons who are interested
the office of an Associate Justice of the therein are concerned.46
Sandiganbayan.39
If only to protect the sanctity of dealings by the public
In the instance in which the Petition for Quo with persons whose ostensible authority emanates
Warranto is filed by an individual in his own from the State, and without ruling on the conditions for
name, he must be able to prove that he is the interplay of the de facto doctrine, the Court
entitled to the controverted public office, declares that Ong may turn out to be either a de
position, or franchise; otherwise, the holder jure officer who is deemed, in all respects, legally
of the same has a right to the undisturbed appointed and qualified and whose term of office has
possession thereof. In actions for Quo not expired, or a de facto officer who enjoys certain
Warranto to determine title to a public office, rights, among which is that his title to said office may
the complaint, to be sufficient in form, must not be contested except directly by writ of quo
show that the plaintiff is entitled to the office. warranto,47 which contingencies all depend on the
In Garcia v. Perez, this Court ruled that the final outcome of the RTC case.
person instituting Quo Warranto proceedings
on his own behalf, under Section 5, Rule 66 WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
of the Rules of Court, must aver and be able
to show that he is entitled to the office in
dispute. Without such averment or evidence
of such right, the action may be dismissed
at any stage.40(Emphasis in the original)