Case Digest (G.R. No. L-12208-11)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-12208-11)
Facts:
Juan Sanchez v. Oscar Del Rosario, G.R. No. L-16878, April 26, 1961, the Supreme Court, Reyes, J.B.L., J., writing for the Court (Bengzon, Acting C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, and Dizon, JJ., concurring).Petitioner Juan Sanchez, a defeated candidate for the municipal council of Bocaue, Bulacan, filed a petition for quo warranto in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan to contest the right of respondent Oscar Del Rosario, the proclaimed winning candidate for councilor. The trial court rendered judgment unseating respondent on the ground of ineligibility due to age under Section 2174 of the Revised Administrative Code. Respondent appealed to the Supreme Court.
It was uncontested that respondent was born 3 August 1938 and thus was 21 years, 3 months and 7 days old on election day, falling short of the 23-year minimum prescribed for elective municipal officers by Section 2174 of the Revised Administrative Code. Respondent advanced four principal defenses on appeal: (1) petitioner knew of respondent’s age before the election and is estopped from bringing quo warranto; (2) petitioner lacks legal personality to sue because he would not, in any event, be entitled to the office if respondent were ousted; (3) a petition earlier filed by Maximo Ortega with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to annul certificates of candidacy of Nacionalista candidates is res judicata; and (4) the age qualification is directory after the election and should not oust the people’s choice.
The trial court’s reasoning, which the Supreme Court reviewed, relied on Section 173 of the Revised Election Code as the proper remedy (quo warranto within one week after proclamation) and found that COMELEC’s act in receiving certificates is ministerial and does not permit inquiry into matters not apparent on the face of the certificates. The case reached the Supreme Court by appeal from the Court of First Instance.
Issues:
- Is petitioner estopped from filing a quo warranto because he knew of respondent’s alleged age disqualification before the election?
- Does petitioner have legal personality to file the quo warranto even if he would not automatically be entitled to the office upon respondent’s ouster?
- Is the prior petition filed by Maximo Ortega with the Commission on Elections res judicata and therefore a bar to the present quo warranto?
- Should the age qualification in Section 2174 of the Revised Administrative Code be treated as merely directory after election, so that respondent’s proclamation should stand?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)