Case Digest (G.R. No. 175352) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Dante V. Liban, Reynaldo M. Bernardo, and Salvador M. Viari v. Richard J. Gordon (G.R. No. 175352, July 15, 2009), petitioners, officers of the Quezon City Red Cross Chapter, sought to declare that Senator Richard J. Gordon had forfeited his Senate seat by accepting the chairmanship of the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) Board of Governors on February 23, 2006. They invoked Section 13, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, arguing that the PNRC is a government-owned or controlled corporation (GOCC) under Camporedondo v. NLRC (370 Phil. 901), and that under Flores v. Drilon (223 SCRA 568) he lost his legislative post upon assuming a government position. In his Comment, respondent contended that petitioners lacked standing—having not claimed entitlement to the Senate seat—as required for quo warranto under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, and that the PNRC is a private voluntary organization performing humanitarian functions. The case was brought directly to this Court as one Case Digest (G.R. No. 175352) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background and Petition
- Petitioners Dante V. Liban, Reynaldo M. Bernardo, and Salvador M. Viari are officers of the Quezon City Red Cross Chapter.
- Respondent Richard J. Gordon is a duly elected Senator (May 2004) and also Chairman of the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) Board of Governors.
- On 23 February 2006, during his Senate term, respondent was elected PNRC Chairman (originally elected in 2003; re-elected in 2005).
- Allegations and Procedural Posture
- Petitioners filed a Petition to Declare Richard J. Gordon as Having Forfeited His Seat in the Senate, alleging that by accepting the PNRC chairmanship—a government-owned or controlled corporation—they trigger the automatic forfeiture provision of Section 13, Article VI of the Constitution.
- Petitioners invoked Camporedondo v. NLRC to classify PNRC as a GOCC, and Flores v. Drilon for the rule on automatic legislative forfeiture upon appointment to another government office.
- Respondent’s Comment:
- Characterized the petition as an improper quo warranto action—petitioners have no standing as they do not claim entitlement to the Senate seat.
- Argued the action is barred by prescription and, even if treated as a taxpayer’s suit or declaratory relief, petitioners failed to show actual injury or jurisdiction.
- Maintained PNRC is not a GOCC and volunteer service is neither “office” nor “employment.”
- Petitioners’ Reply: They insist the petition is a taxpayer’s suit challenging illegal disbursement (respondent drawing Senate salary despite forfeiture) and that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over constitutional questions of transcendental importance.
Issues:
- Whether the Philippine National Red Cross is a government-owned or controlled corporation.
- Whether Section 13, Article VI of the Constitution applies to a legislator serving as PNRC Chairman.
- Whether respondent automatically forfeited his Senate seat by accepting the PNRC chairmanship.
- Whether petitioners have legal standing to file the petition.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)