Lim v. Yulo
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the office of justice of the peace of Carmen, Cebu. The petitioner, Jose Lim, previously held this position. The core issue revolves around the circumstances under which he vacated the office and his subsequent attempt to reclaim it. 2. Procedural History: Jose Lim, the petitioner, reached the age of sixty-five years on December 2, 1933, a fact he brought to the attention of the Secretary of Justice. He also communicated to the Judge of First Instance of Cebu his readiness to surrender his office. Subsequently, respondent Antonio Lao qualified and entered upon the discharge of the duties of justice of the peace for Carmen, Cebu. More than one year and seven months after voluntarily vacating the office, Jose Lim initiated the present action. 3. The Petition: This case is a quo warranto proceeding initiated by Jose Lim to be reinstated as justice of the peace of Carmen, Cebu. The petitioner seeks to challenge the right of the respondent to hold the office. The respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor-General, argue that the action cannot prosper due to two primary reasons: the one-year prescriptive period for quo warranto actions and the petitioner's voluntary surrender of the office, which precludes such a proceeding.
Issue(s)
Whether the quo warranto proceeding filed by the petitioner is barred by the one-year prescriptive period. Whether the petitioner's voluntary surrender of office precludes him from maintaining a quo warranto proceeding.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed, with costs taxed against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the one-year prescriptive period: The Court held that an action of quo warranto can only be brought against an officer to be ousted from his office within one year after the cause of such ouster, or the right to hold the office arose. In this case, the petitioner completed the age of sixty-five years on December 2, 1933, which was the cause for the ouster or the arising of the right to hold the office. The action was filed on August 24, 1935, which is more than one year after the cause of ouster arose. Therefore, the action is barred by the prescriptive period provided in Section 216 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the issue of acquiescence or voluntary surrender: The Court reiterated the principle that acquiescence or voluntary surrender of an office precludes the maintenance of a quo warranto proceeding. The petitioner had voluntarily informed the authorities of his retirement due to age and expressed his readiness to surrender his office. This conduct demonstrated his acquiescence to vacating the position. Consequently, he cannot subsequently maintain a quo warranto proceeding to reclaim the office he voluntarily relinquished.
Main Doctrine
A quo warranto proceeding to oust an officer must be filed within one year after the cause of ouster arose, and acquiescence or voluntary surrender of office precludes the maintenance of such action.