Castro v. Solidum
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: In the 1951 general elections, Jovencio Q. Mayor was elected Governor of Romblon, Democrito M. Castro was elected Member of the Provincial Board, and Manuel Solidum, a member of a different political party, was also elected Member of the Provincial Board. All three took their oaths of office. 2. Procedural History: On September 11, 1953, Governor Mayor resigned to run for Congress and petitioner Democrito M. Castro was designated Acting Provincial Governor. On January 6, 1954, respondent Manuel Solidum was designated Acting Provincial Governor by the President, replacing Castro. Castro surrendered the office to Solidum without objection at the time, but later instituted this action. 3. The Petition: Petitioner Castro filed a petition for quo warranto, seeking reinstatement as Governor of Romblon. He claims respondent Solidum is illegally occupying the position, invoking Section 21(b) of the Revised Election Code regarding appointments to fill vacancies. The Supreme Court, however, found that Castro's own appointment was merely temporary as an Acting Provincial Governor, and thus he had no established right to the office to contest Solidum's subsequent appointment.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner Castro has the right to institute the present quo warranto action. Whether respondent Solidum is illegally occupying the position of Governor of Romblon.
Ruling
The petition is denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On the right to institute the quo warranto action: The Court held that in litigations where a plaintiff seeks reinstatement to an office on the ground of usurpation or illegal deprivation, the plaintiff must prove their right to the office. Unless the right is shown, the action must fail, even if the successor's appointment is put in issue. In this case, petitioner Castro was merely designated by the President as Acting Provincial Governor. Such an appointment is temporary and good only until another appointment is made. When the President appointed respondent Solidum to take his place, Castro should have stepped down. Therefore, petitioner failed to establish his right to the office, which is a prerequisite for a quo warranto action. On the legality of respondent Solidum's occupation of the office: The Court found it unnecessary to decide whether Solidum's appointment was in accordance with Section 21(b) of the Revised Election Code, particularly concerning political party affiliation. This is because the primary issue was petitioner Castro's own right to the office. Since Castro, as an acting appointee, did not have a vested right to the position beyond the pleasure of the appointing power, his claim to the office, and consequently his challenge to Solidum's appointment, lacked legal basis. The appointing power has full discretion in changing an acting appointee, and such changes do not require cause or hearing.
Main Doctrine
An acting appointment is merely temporary and good until another appointment is made. The appointee must step out and cannot dispute the validity of his successor's appointment, as the appointing power has full discretion in changing an acting appointee.