Professional Documents
Culture Documents
4 Topacio V Ong
4 Topacio V Ong
Associate Justice Gregory Ong and OSG, (a) A person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a
G.R. No. 179895 December 18, 2008 public office, position or franchise;
By: Kate (b) A public officer who does or suffers an act which, by the provision of
Topic: Quo Warranto law, constitutes a ground for the forfeiture of his office; or
Petitioners: FERDINAND S. TOPACIO (c) An association which acts as a corporation within the Philippines
Respondents: ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN GREGORY SANTOS ONG and THE without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority so to act.
SEC. 2. When Solicitor General or public prosecutor must commence action. ─ The
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
Solicitor General or a public prosecutor, when directed by the President of the
Ponente: J. Carpio Morales Philippines, or when upon complaint or otherwise he has good reason to believe
that any case specified in the preceding section can be established by proof, must
FACTS: commence such action.
SEC. 3. When Solicitor General or public prosecutor may commence action with
- Ferdinand Topacio (Petitioner) seeks to prevent Justice Gregory Ong (Respondent) from permission of court. ─ The Solicitor General or a public prosecutor may, with the
further exercising the powers, duties and responsibilities of a Sandiganbayan Associate permission of the court in which the action is to be commenced, bring such an
Justice. action at the request and upon the relation of another person; but in such case the
- Topacio implored the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to initiate post-haste a quo officer bringing it may first require an indemnity for the expenses and costs of the
warranto proceeding against Gregory Santos Ong in the latter’s capacity as an incumbent action in an amount approved by and to be deposited in the court by the person at
Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan. whose request and upon whose relation the same is brought. (Italics and emphasis
- Topacio points out that natural-born citizenship is also a qualification for appointment as in the original)
member of the Sandiganbayan and that Ong has failed to meet the citizenship requirement.
- Ong, on the other hand, avers that the RTC had already granted his petition (Petition for the In the exercise of sound discretion, the Solicitor General may suspend or turn down the
"amendment/ correction/ supplementation or annotation of an entry in [his] Certificate of institution of an action for quo warranto where there are just and valid reasons.
Birth,") and recognized him as a natural-born citizen.
-,Ong caused the corresponding annotation thereof in his Certificate of Birth. Upon receipt of a case certified to him, the Solicitor General exercises his discretion in the
- The OSG informed Topacio that it cannot favorably act on request for the filing of a quo management of the case. He may start the prosecution of the case by filing the appropriate
warranto petition until the RTC case shall have been terminated with finality. Topacio assails action in court or he may opt not to file the case at all. He may do everything within his legal
this position of the OSG as being tainted with grave abuse of discretion. authority but always conformably with the national interest and the policy of the
government on the matter at hand
ISSUE: Whether or not the OSG committed grave abuse of discretion in deferring the filing of It appears that after studying the case, the Solicitor General saw the folly of re-litigating the
a petition for quo warranto until the finality of a case before the RTC. same issue of Ong’s citizenship in the quo warranto case simultaneously with the RTC case,
not to mention the consequent risk of forum-shopping. In any event, the OSG did not totally
write finis to the issue as it merely advised petitioner to await the outcome of the RTC case.
RULING:
Moreover, for a quo warranto petition to be successful, the private person suing must show a
NO. A decision is not deemed tainted with grave abuse of discretion simply because the
clear right to the contested office. In fact, not even a mere preferential right to be appointed
affected party disagrees with it. The Solicitor General is the counsel of the government, its
thereto can lend a modicum of legal ground to proceed with the action. In the present case,
agencies and instrumentalities, and its officials or agents. In the discharge of its task, the
Topacio presented no sufficient proof of a clear and indubitable franchise to the office of an
Solicitor General must see to it that the best interest of the government is upheld within the
Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan. He in fact concedes that he was never entitled to
limits set by law
assume the office of an Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan.
SECTION 1. Action by Government against individuals. – An action for the WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
usurpation of a public office, position or franchise may be commenced by a verified
petition brought in the name of the Republic of the Philippines against: