Title
Tavora vs. Ofiana
Case
G.R. No. L-2431
Decision Date
May 23, 1949
Ceferino Tavora files a petition for quo warranto against Pedro Ofiana, claiming that Ofiana is illegally occupying the position of judge of peace in Bauang, La Union, but the court rules that Tavora's petition is ineffective due to the expiration of the two-year period for filing the action.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-2431)

Facts:

  • The case Tavora v. Ofiana, G.R. No. L-2431, was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on May 23, 1949.
  • Ceferino Tavora initiated a quo warranto proceeding against Pedro Ofiana, the judge of peace in Bauang, La Union.
  • Tavora served as judge of peace from November 1937 until December 20, 1941.
  • During the Japanese occupation, Tavora was appointed judge of peace for several municipalities in La Union.
  • He received a designation from the Philippine Civil Affairs Unit upon the arrival of American forces.
  • In February 1946, Tavora received an interim appointment as judge of peace for Bauang, which was later disapproved by the Commission on Appointments.
  • Pedro Ofiana was appointed to the same position, confirmed on July 30, 1946, and took his oath on August 3, 1946.
  • Tavora filed for quo warranto on August 18, 1948, seeking to reclaim his former position and its benefits.
  • Ofiana contended that Tavora's action was barred due to the expiration of the time limit for filing.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court ruled against Ceferino Tavora, stating that his petition for quo warranto was ineffective due to the expiration of the two-year period from when Ofiana took office until Tavora filed his petition.
  • The Court emphasized that, according to Article 16 ...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Court's decision was based on the interpretation of procedural rules for quo warranto actions, specifically Article 16 of Rule 68.
  • This article mandates that no action can be taken to remove a public official unless initiated within one year of the alleged usurpation or the claimant's right to the office.
  • The Court reasoned that even if Tavora had not ceased to be ...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.