This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-04-16 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| "A petition for quo warranto is a proceeding to determine the right of a person to use or exercise a franchise or an office and to oust the holder from the enjoyment, thereof, if the claim is not well-founded, or if his right to enjoy the privilege has been forfeited."[21] Where the action is filed by a private person, in his own name, he must prove that he is entitled to the controverted position, otherwise, respondent has a right to the undisturbed possession of the office.[22] | |||||
|
2008-06-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| (3) The determination of the respective rights in and to the office, position, right, privilege or franchise of all the parties to the action as justice requires.[33] In the instance in which the Petition for Quo Warranto is filed by an individual in his own name, he must be able to prove that he is entitled to the controverted public office, position, or franchise; otherwise, the holder of the same has a right to the undisturbed possession thereof. In actions for Quo Warranto to determine title to a public office, the complaint, to be sufficient in form, must show that the plaintiff is entitled to the office.[34] In Garcia v. Perez,[35] this Court ruled that the person instituting Quo Warranto proceedings on his own behalf, under Section 5, Rule 66 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.[36] | |||||
|
2006-06-27 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| The right to salary and other emoluments arising from public employment is based on one's valid appointment or election to the office itself and accrues from the date of actual commencement of the discharge of official duties. As may be recalled, petitioner Engaño, albeit lacking in qualifications, was nonetheless appointed as Director of the BJMP and appeared to have entered upon the performance of the duties of the position from September 27, 2001 to October 2, 2001 when the appointing authority recalled his appointment owing to some legal issues respecting his qualification. Subsequently, however, the appointment was peremptorily nullified. In all, therefore, petitioner Engano served as head of the BJMP for six (6) days only, but as a de facto officer at best. And while a de facto officer is entitled to some form of compensation, respondents Secretary Lina and Alit cannot be held personally liable for petitioner's claim for salary, RATA and other benefits.[13] The BJMP cannot also be compelled to pay since it was not a party in the petition below for quo warranto, nor in the appellate proceedings before the CA.[14] | |||||