View full case

TOPACIO v. ONG

FACTS:

The petitioner, Ferdinand Topacio, seeks to prevent Justice Gregory Ong from exercising his powers, duties, and responsibilities as a Sandiganbayan Associate Justice. In a previous case, Kilosbayan Foundation v. Ermita, Ong was enjoined from accepting an appointment to the Supreme Court until he proved his natural-born Filipino citizenship. Ong filed a petition to amend/correct his birth certificate with the RTC of Pasig City. Topacio requested the OSG to initiate a quo warranto proceeding against Ong, arguing that natural-born citizenship is required for a Sandiganbayan appointment. The OSG refused to act on Topacio's request until the RTC case concluded. Topacio files a petition stating that Ong should be disqualified from his Sandiganbayan position due to his citizenship. Ong argues that his Supreme Court appointment was not nullified and that he voluntarily relinquished it. Ong further states that the RTC has recognized his natural-born citizenship petition. The pleadings of both parties mirror other pending petitions in higher courts. The OSG objects to the defective verification of the petition, but the court rules that verification is a mere formality. The court also determines that the OSG did not commit grave abuse of discretion in delaying the filing of a quo warranto petition until after the RTC case conclusion. The Solicitor General has the duty to protect the government's best interest, and the pertinent rules on quo warranto actions are mentioned.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Solicitor General has the discretion to refuse to institute a suit for quo warranto.

  2. Whether a petition for certiorari and prohibition can be used as a collateral attack on a public officer's title.

  3. Whether or not the petitioner's petition for prohibition is dismissible.

  4. Whether or not the petitioner's petition for quo warranto is dismissible.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the Solicitor General has the discretion to refuse to institute a suit for quo warranto. The Solicitor General may suspend or turn down the institution of an action for quo warranto where there are just and valid reasons. The exercise of discretion must be within the parameters set by law and in line with the best interest of the state.

  2. No, a petition for certiorari and prohibition cannot be used as a collateral attack on a public officer's title. The title to a public office can only be contested directly through quo warranto proceedings. The writ of prohibition cannot be treated as a substitute for quo warranto and cannot be used to inquire into the validity of the appointment of a public officer.

  3. Yes, the petitioner's petition for prohibition is dismissible. Prohibition is an improper remedy to determine the title to an office, and the rightful authority of a judge cannot be questioned by prohibition. Therefore, if an intruder takes possession of a judicial office, the person dispossessed cannot obtain relief through a writ of prohibition commanding the alleged intruder to cease from performing judicial acts.

  4. Yes, the petitioner's petition for quo warranto is dismissible. For a quo warranto petition to be successful, the private person suing must show a clear right to the contested office. The petitioner failed to present sufficient proof of a clear and indubitable franchise to the office of an Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan, and he concedes that he was never entitled to assume the office. Therefore, the petitioner did not show that he is entitled to the office and the petition for quo warranto is dismissible.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The Solicitor General has the discretion to refuse to institute a suit for quo warranto, but the exercise of discretion must be within the limits set by law and in line with the best interest of the state.

  • The title to a public office can only be contested directly through quo warranto proceedings and cannot be assailed collaterally through other remedies such as certiorari and prohibition.

  • Prohibition is an improper remedy to determine the title to an office.

  • A quo warranto proceeding is the proper legal remedy to determine the right or title to a contested public office.

  • To be successful in a quo warranto petition, the private person suing must show a clear right to the contested office.

  • The rightful authority of a judge, in the full exercise of his public judicial functions, cannot be questioned by any merely private suitor, or by any other, except in the form provided by law.

  • A judge de facto assumes the exercise of a part of the prerogative of sovereignty, and the official acts of a de facto judge are valid for all purposes as those of a de jure judge, so far as the public or third persons who are interested therein are concerned.