Campos v. Degamo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Ernesto Campos and Florencio Oroc, elected councilors in the November 1959 elections for Carmen, Agusan, filed a quo warranto action on September 27, 1960. They alleged that respondents Esteban Degamo and Felino Palarca were improperly proclaimed Mayor and Vice-Mayor, respectively, on December 7, 1959. The basis for their challenge was the alleged improper use of election returns from the Provincial Treasurer's Office instead of the municipal treasury's copy for Precinct 6 during the canvass, leading to an invalid proclamation. Petitioners further claimed respondents occupied their offices in a temporary building and appointed police personnel, despite petitioners' demands to cease these actions. Petitioners sought to be declared the rightful holders of the Mayor and Vice-Mayor positions and to be placed in immediate possession. Procedural History: Respondents, in their answer, asserted that the Board of Canvassers acted under the Commission on Elections' instructions, that they were duly elected and proclaimed, and that their office relocation was due to the previous mayor vacating the municipal building. They also raised several affirmative defenses, including the petition being filed out of time, lack of cause of action, petitioners' lack of legal standing, lack of jurisdiction, and the existence of a prior, similar quo warranto case pending before the Supreme Court. The lower court, on January 28, 1961, dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction and cause of action. The court reasoned that the petition did not qualify as an election law quo warranto due to the petitioners not being candidates for the contested offices and the expiration of the one-week filing period. It also found the petition insufficient as an ordinary quo warranto because it failed to name individuals claiming entitlement to the offices and was premature due to a pending Supreme Court case involving the same positions. The Petition: Petitioners appealed the lower court's dismissal directly to the Supreme Court, raising purely questions of law. They argued that the lower court erred in declaring them not entitled to the Mayor and Vice-Mayor positions and in finding that their petition lacked a cause of action. The Supreme Court, taking judicial notice of related proceedings, noted that neither petitioner was a candidate for Mayor or Vice-Mayor, while respondents Degamo and Palarca were the duly elected officials. The Court also highlighted the pendency of another quo warranto case before it, filed by Jose Malimit and Vicente Acain, who claimed entitlement to these same offices. The Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal, finding the petition violated Section 173 of the Revised Election Code by not being filed within the prescribed period and by petitioners not being registered candidates for the contested positions. Furthermore, as an ordinary quo warranto under Rule 68, the petition was deficient for failing to name the claimants (Malimit and Acain) and was premature due to the ongoing litigation by those claimants.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioners, who were elected councilors, have the legal personality to file a Quo Warranto petition against the Mayor and Vice-Mayor under the Revised Election Code. Whether the petition qualifies as a valid ordinary Quo Warranto proceeding under Rule 68 of the Rules of Court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the lower court. The Court ruled that the petitioners were not the proper parties to institute the action and that the petition failed to state a cause of action, rendering the filing premature.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the petition cannot be sustained under Section 173 of the Revised Election Code (REC). By the express language of the statute, a contest against an ineligible elected official must be brought by a 'registered candidate for the same office.' Since Campos and Oroc were candidates for the office of councilor, not Mayor or Vice-Mayor, they lack the standing required by the REC. Furthermore, the REC requires such a petition to be filed within one week after the proclamation of the election results. In this case, the respondents were proclaimed on December 7, 1959, but the petition was only filed on September 27, 1960, which is nearly ten months beyond the reglementary period. Consequently, the action is barred by time and the petitioners are not the proper parties to invoke the REC's provisions. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the action also fails if treated as an ordinary Quo Warranto under Rule 68 of the Rules of Court. Section 7 of Rule 68 stipulates that a complaint for usurpation of office must set forth the name of the person who claims to be entitled to the office, with an averment of their right to the same. Previous jurisprudence, such as Luna vs. Rodriguez and Acosta vs. Flor, establishes that where the office is elective, the complaint must show that the plaintiff was duly elected thereto. Petitioners Campos and Oroc were elected as councilors and do not claim to have been elected as Mayor or Vice-Mayor; thus, they are not the proper parties to institute the action. Additionally, the Court noted that a separate Quo Warranto case filed by the actual rival candidates (Malimit and Acain) was already pending, making this petition premature as the cause of action had not yet accrued for these petitioners.
Main Doctrine
A petition for quo warranto under the Revised Election Code must be filed within one week from proclamation and by a registered candidate for the same office. An ordinary quo warranto under the Rules of Court must state the name of the person claiming entitlement to the office and that the defendant is unlawfully in possession thereof. Furthermore, the filing of a quo warranto action is premature if there is a pending case involving the same offices and parties.