RULE 66 - QUO WARRANTO

Nature & Purpose of the action

Quo Warranto proceeding

 is an action against a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises
a public office or even a public franchise

 An action for the usurpation of a public

o Office
o Position or
o Franchise that is commenced by a verified petition in the name of the RP

Quo Warranto distinguished from Mandamus

Quo Warranto Mandamus

- a proceeding brought against the holder of the - the suit is brought against the person who is
office, who is the person claiming the office as responsible for unlawfully excluding the petitioner
against the petitioner from office like an appointing authority

A petition generally brought in the name of the Republic; verified petition

Republic Individual
is a special civil action commenced in the name of May be brought by an individual in his own name
the RP by a verified petition. if he claims to be entitled to a public office
usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by
another

Against whom petition may be brought

1. The petition for the usurpation of a public office, position or franchise may be brought against
any of the following:
a) Person;
b) Public officer
c) Association
2.

If brought against a person –
If filed against a public officer
If filed against an association
said person is one who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or
exercises a public office, position or franchise.
said officer is one does or suffers an act which by the provision of
law constitutes a ground for the forfeiture of his office.
it is one which acts as a corporation within the Philippines without
being legally incorporated or without lawful authority
Who may commence the petition:

The petition may be commenced When

by the:
a. Solicitor General
b. Public Prosecutor
c. Private Person
When directed by the president of the Philippines, or when upon
complaint or otherwise he has good reason to believe that any
case specified in the Rules can be established by proof, the SG or
the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR must commence the action
The person authorized to file is the one who claims to be entitled
to a public office or position which was usurped or unlawfully
held or exercised by another person.

He must show that he has a clear right to the office allegedly

being held by another.

Allegations when the petition is filed against a usurper; parties

1. When the action is against a person for usurping a public office, position or franchise, the
petition shall set forth:
a. Name of the person who claims to be entitled thereto, if any;
b. The petitioner’s right to the same;
c. Unlawful possession of the office, position or franchise by the respondent
2. All persons who claim to be entitled to the public office, position or franchise may be made
parties.
In the same action, the court shall determine their respective rights to such public office,
position or franchise.

Jurisdiction and Venue

Quo Warranto can be brought only in the: When the action is commenced by the Solicitor
General (SG), the petition may be brought in the
a. Supreme Court RTC of the City of Manila, the CA or the SC.
b. Court of Appeals
c. Regional Trial Court Which has jurisdiction over the territorial area
where the respondent or any of the respondent
resides

Quo Warranto in the Sandiganbayan

In certain cases, the petition may be brought in the Sandiganbayan PD. 1606, as amended by R.A. 8249,
Se. 4 provides:

“The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance f the
writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions and other ancillary writs and
processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto,
arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may be files under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-
A, issued in 1996: Provided that the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the SC.”

Quo Warranto under the Omnibus Election Code

1. Under the Omnibus Election Code, a petition for quo warranto may be brought in the COMELEC,
RTC or Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Court as the case may be.

Section 253. Petition for quo warranto --

Who is being contested Ground Where to file When to file

Any voter contesting the
election of any Member
of the Batasang
Pambansa, regional,
provincial, or city officer
Any voter contesting the
election of any municipal
or barangay officer on
ineligibility or of file a sworn petition within 10 days after the
disloyalty to the for quo warranto proclamation of the results
Republic of the with the COMELEC of the election
Philippines
ineligibility or of file a sworn petition within 10 days after the
disloyalty to the for quo warranto proclamation of the
Republic of the with the RTC or results of the election.
MeTC/MTC

2. The court, however ruled that where the issue is

Who is being contested Ground Where to file

Elected member of the House of qualification House of Representatives
Representatives Electoral Tribunal - HRET

QUO WARRANTO in the Omnibus Election Code (elective office) distinguished from QUO WARRANTO
in an appointive office

The following are the distinctions between them:

QUO WARRANTO in an elective QUO WARRANTO in an

Distinctions
office appointive office
Governing Law Election Law Rules of Court
Eligibility or ineligibility of the Legality or illegality of the
Issue person elected or his loyalty or occupancy of the office by virtue
disloyalty to the Republic of an appointment
Within 1 year from the time the
within 10 days after the
cause of ouster; or the right of
When to file proclamation of the results of the
the petitioner to hold office or
election
position, arose
Where to file COMELEC, RTC or MTC SC, CA or RTC
 Any voter even if he is not Person claiming to be entitled to
Who is the petitioner
entitled to the office the office
Where the person elected is
ineligible, the court cannot
declare that candidate occupying The court determines who is
the second place as elected even legally appointed and can and
Effect
if he were eligible, since the law ought to declare the person
only authorizes a declaration of entitled to occupy the office.
election in favor of the person
obtaining the plurality of votes.

Quo warranto distinguished from an election protest

1. General Rule: The proper remedy after the proclamation of the winning candidate for the position
contested would be to file a regular election protest or quo warranto.

Quo warranto petition in an election of

Election Protest
public officials
Cause of Eligibility of the candidate or lack of it or Irregularity in the conduct of the
Action his being disloyal to the Republic elections

 Refers to the question of  Proposes to oust the winning

disloyalty to the State, or of
ineligibility of the winning
candidate.
 The objective of the action is to
unseat the ineligible person from
the office, but not to install the
petitioner in his place.
 Any voter may initiate the action,
which is strictly speaking, not a
contest where the parties strive
for supremacy because the
petitioner will not be seated even
if the respondent may be
unseated.
2. A controversy where the petitioner is seeking to be seated as the second nominee of a party list
organization is neither an election protest nor a quo warranto proceeding.
candidate from office.
 Strictly a contest between the
defeated and the winning
candidates, based on the
grounds of electoral frauds and
irregularities, to determine who
between them has actually
obtained the majority of the
legal votes cast and entitled to
hold the office.

It can only be filed by a
candidate who has duly filed a
certificate of candidacy and has
been voted for in the preceding
elections.

PERIOD FOR FILING

An action for quo warranto by reason of ouster from a public office shall be filed within 1 year after the
cause of such ouster, or the right of the petitioner to hold such office or position arose.
JUDGMENT IN QUO WARRANTO PROCEEDINGS

1. In case of usurpation of a public office, when 2. The court may render judgment for
the respondent is found guilty of usurping, costs against either the:
intruding into or unlawfully holding or
exercising a public office, position or  Petitioner,
franchise, the judgment shall include the  Relator, or
following:  Respondent, or
a) Respondent shall be ousted &  The person or persons
excluded from the office; claiming to be a corporation.
b) Petitioner or relator, as the case may The court may also apportion the
be shall recover his costs; and costs as justice requires
c) Such further judgment determining
the respective rights in and to the
public office, position, or franchise of
all the parties to the action as justice
requires.

RIGHTS OF PERSONS ADJUDGED ENTITLED TO PUBLIC OFFICE

1. The person adjudged to be entitled to the public office may exercise the following rights after
taking his oath of office and executing the required bond:

a. Take upon himself the execution of the office;

b. Immediately thereafter demand of the respondent all the books and papers in the
respondent’s custody or control appertaining to the office to which the judgment
relates.

2. If the respondent refuses or neglects to deliver any book or paper pursuant to such demand, he
may be punished for contempt as having disobeyed a lawful order of the court (Sec. 10 Rule 66 ROC)

Note: A disobedience to a lawful order of the court is cause for an indirect contempt. This
contempt is punished after a charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the
respondent to be heard (Sec 3 (b) Rule 71 ROC)

3. The person adjudged entitled to the office may also recover the damages sustained by him by
reason of the usurpation. (Sec. 10, Rule 66 ROC)

PERIOD TO CLAIM DAMAGES

If the petitioner is adjudged to be entitled to the office, he may sue for damages against the
alleged usurper within one (1) year from the entry of judgment establishing his right to the office in
question (Sec 11 Rule 66 ROC)
QUO WARRANTO AGAINST CORPORATIONS

1. Although a quo warranto proceeding may be brought against an association which acts as a
corporation within the Philippines without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority
so to act, the petition may be brought only against a de facto corporation, not a de jure
corporation.

The latter corporation has no defect in its incorporation and exercises corporate powers
because it was organized in full compliance with the laws. There is therefore, no reason to
attack its existence and its exercise of corporate powers.

2. De facto corporation – is one which, in good faith, claims to be a corporation being organized
pursuant to a valid law, and assumes corporate powers because it was issued a certificate of
incorporation. Traditionally, it has been referred to as a corporation which exists in fact but not
in law.
Under the Corporation Code, the due incorporation of any corporation in good faith to be a
corporation under such Code, and its right to exercise corporate powers, shall not be injured
into collaterally in any private suit to which such corporation may be a party. Such inquiry may
be made by the Solicitor General (SG) in a quo warranto proceeding (Sec 20 Corporation Code of
the Philippines)