Title
Lacanilao vs. De Leon
Case
G.R. No. 76532
Decision Date
Jan 26, 1987
SEAFDEC Aquaculture Department leadership dispute: Dr. Lacanilao's lawful appointment upheld, Capt. de Leon's forcible takeover invalidated by Supreme Court.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 76532)

Applicable Law

The pertinent legal framework is the Agreement Establishing the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center, ratified by member countries, including the Philippines, involving the appointment authority for Department Heads, specifically under Articles 6 and 10 of this Agreement. Furthermore, the 1987 Philippine Constitution governs the procedural aspects of the quo warranto action being contested.

Claims of the Petitioner

Lacanilao asserted his rightful claim to the position based on a nomination by the Philippine Minister of Agriculture and Food, endorsed by the Secretary-General of SEAFDEC, and confirmed by a majority vote within the SEAFDEC Council. He contended that, as of November 21, 1986, when De Leon occupied the offices, Lacanilao’s appointment remained valid and that De Leon’s actions constituted unlawful usurpation.

Actions of the Respondent

De Leon executed a physical takeover of the offices of SEAFDEC AQD during Lacanilao’s absence while attending a Council meeting in Tokyo. Upon his takeover, De Leon commenced exercising the powers of the Chief, overriding Lacanilao's authority by managing departmental finances and personnel.

Legal Proceedings Initiated by the Petitioner

Upon returning from Tokyo, Lacanilao filed a petition for quo warranto against De Leon with an urgent request for a temporary restraining order to prevent De Leon from continuing his assumed functions. The case revolved around the authority to hold the position of Chief of the SEAFDEC AQD.

Court's Ruling on the Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court determined that it has jurisdiction over this matter as it involved conflicting claims to a position related to a governmental entity operating within the Philippines. The petition was effectively treated as a request for injunctive relief rather than strictly a quo warranto proceeding due to the nature of the dispute and the implications of administrative authority involving an international organization.

Findings Regarding Nomination and Appointment

The Court found that while De Leon claimed entitlement based on a letter recommending his appointment to the SEAFDEC Council, the relevant provisions of the Agreement establish that a nomination does not equate to an appointment. The SEAFDEC Council had not officially disapproved Lacanilao’s appointment nor confirmed De Leon's, thereby maintaining the validity of Lacanilao’s position.

Conclusion on Quo Warranto Petition

Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of Lacanilao,

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.