DIGEST/KRIZABEL MARTINEZ/ MENDOZA vs ALLAS & OLORES

 ( Rule 66 )

G.R. No. 131977, February 04, 1999 

PEDRO MENDOZA, PETITIONER, VS. RAY ALLAS AND GODOFREDO OLORES, RESPONDENTS.

 

FACTS

Pedro Mendoza joined the Bureau of Customs in 1972.On March 1, 1988, he was appointed Customs Service Chief of the Customs Intelligence and Investigation Service (CIIS). In 1989, the position of Customs Service Chief was reclassified by the Civil Service as "Director III" in accordance with Republic Act No. 6758 and National Compensation Circular No. 50. Petitioner's position was thus categorized as "Director III, CIIS" and he discharged the function and duties of said office.

Petitioner was temporarily designated as Acting District Collector, Collection District X, Cagayan de Oro City. In his place, respondent Ray Allas was appointed as "Acting Director III" of the CIIS. Despite petitioner's new assignment as Acting District Collector, however, he continued to receive the salary and benefits of the position of Director III.

Deputy Customs Commissioner Cesar Z. Dario informed petitioner of his termination from the Bureau of Customs, in view of respondent Allas' appointment as Director III by President Fidel V. Ramos. Petitioner wrote the Customs Commissioner demanding his reinstatement with full back wages and without loss of seniority rights. No reply was made.

On December 2, 1994, petitioner filed a petition for quo warranto against respondent Allas. The court found that petitioner was illegally terminated from office without due process of law and in violation of his security of tenure, and that as he was deemed not to have vacated his office, the appointment of respondent Allas to the same office was void ab initio. The court ordered the ouster of respondent Allas from the position of Director III, and at the same time directed the reinstatement of petitioner to the same position with payment of full back salaries and other benefits appurtenant thereto.

Respondent appealed to the CA. While the case was pending before said court, respondent was promoted by President Ramos to the position of Deputy Commissioner of Customs for Assessment and Operations. Because of this promotion, petitioner moved to dismiss respondent's appeal as having been rendered moot and academic. The CA granted the motion and dismissed the case accordingly.

Petitioner filed with the court a quo a Motion for Execution of its decision. The court denied the motion on the ground that the contested position vacated by respondent Allas was now being occupied by respondent Godofredo Olores who was not a party to the quo warranto petition.

Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals questioning the order of the trial court. However, the CA dismissed the petition.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals grossly erred in holding that a writ of execution may no longer be issued, considering that respondent, who was not a party to the case, now occupies the subject position

 

RULING

No. The Court of Appeals did not err in denying execution of the trial court's decision.

A petition for quo warranto is a proceeding to determine the right of a person to the use or exercise of a franchise or office and to oust the holder from its enjoyment, if his claim is not well-founded, or if he has forfeited his right to enjoy the privilege. 

Ordinarily, a judgment against a public officer regarding a public right binds his successor in office. This rule, however, is not applicable in quo warranto cases. A judgment in quo warranto does not bind the respondent's successor in office, even though such successor may trace his title to the same source. This follows from the nature of the writ of quo warranto itself. It is never directed to an officer as such, but always against the person-- to determine whether he is constitutionally and legally authorized to perform any act in or exercise any function of the office to which he lays claim. In the case, the petition for quo warranto was filed by petitioner solely against respondent Allas. What was threshed out before the trial court was the qualification and right of petitioner to the contested position as against respondent Ray Allas, not against Godofredo Olores.