September 1935 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1935 > September 1935 Decisions >
G.R. No. 44277 September 26, 1935 - JOSE LIM v. JOSE YULO
062 Phil 161:
062 Phil 161:
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 44277. September 26, 1935.]
JOSE LIM, Petitioner, v. JOSE YULO, JOSE DE LA RAMA, and ANTONIO LAO, Respondents.
C. de la Victoria for Petitioner.
Solicitor-General Hilado for Respondents.
SYLLABUS
1. COURTS; JUSTICES OF THE PEACE; QUO WARRANTO. — An action of quo warranto can only be brought against an officer to be ousted from his office within one year after the cause of such ouster, or the right to hold the office, arose.
2. ID.; ID. — Acquiescence or voluntary surrender of an office precludes the maintenance of a quo warranto proceeding.
2. ID.; ID. — Acquiescence or voluntary surrender of an office precludes the maintenance of a quo warranto proceeding.
D E C I S I O N
MALCOLM, J.:
The purpose of these quo warranto proceedings is to secure an order by means of which the petitioner can be reinstated in his office of justice of the peace of Carmen, Cebu.
Jose Lim, the petitioner, the former justice of the peace of Carmen, Cebu, completed the age of sixty-five years on December 2, 1933. This fact was brought to the attention of the Secretary of Justice by the petitioner, and later the petitioner in another communication addressed to the Judge of First Instance of Cebu, informed the latter that he was ready to surrender his office to whomsoever might be designated by the court. On August 24, 1935, that is, after the respondent Antonio Lao had qualified as and entered upon the discharge of the office of justice of the peace of Carmen, Cebu, and after the lapse of more than one year and seven months from the date and petitioner voluntarily vacated the office, he began this action.
The foregoing facts disclose two fundamental reasons why, notwithstanding our previous decisions interpretative of section 203 of the Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3899, the instant action cannot prosper. In the first place, an action of quo warranto can only be brought against an officer to be ousted from his office within one year after the cause of such ouster, or the right to hold the office, arose (Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 216; Bautista v. Fajardo [1918], 38 Phil., 624). In the second place, acquiescence or voluntary surrender of an office precludes the maintenance of a quo warranto proceeding. (Tañada v. Yulo [1935 , 61 Phil., 515; Ortiz Airoso v. De Guzman [1926], 49 Phil., 371.)
Wherefore, the petition filed in the present case will be dismissed, with the costs taxed against the petitioner.
Villa-Real, Hull, Imperial, and Goddard, JJ., concur.
Jose Lim, the petitioner, the former justice of the peace of Carmen, Cebu, completed the age of sixty-five years on December 2, 1933. This fact was brought to the attention of the Secretary of Justice by the petitioner, and later the petitioner in another communication addressed to the Judge of First Instance of Cebu, informed the latter that he was ready to surrender his office to whomsoever might be designated by the court. On August 24, 1935, that is, after the respondent Antonio Lao had qualified as and entered upon the discharge of the office of justice of the peace of Carmen, Cebu, and after the lapse of more than one year and seven months from the date and petitioner voluntarily vacated the office, he began this action.
The foregoing facts disclose two fundamental reasons why, notwithstanding our previous decisions interpretative of section 203 of the Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3899, the instant action cannot prosper. In the first place, an action of quo warranto can only be brought against an officer to be ousted from his office within one year after the cause of such ouster, or the right to hold the office, arose (Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 216; Bautista v. Fajardo [1918], 38 Phil., 624). In the second place, acquiescence or voluntary surrender of an office precludes the maintenance of a quo warranto proceeding. (Tañada v. Yulo [1935 , 61 Phil., 515; Ortiz Airoso v. De Guzman [1926], 49 Phil., 371.)
Wherefore, the petition filed in the present case will be dismissed, with the costs taxed against the petitioner.
Villa-Real, Hull, Imperial, and Goddard, JJ., concur.
