G.R. No. 20485. November 29, 1963
DEMETRIO M. BATARIO, JR., PETITIONER VS. JOSE J. PARENTELA, JR., RESPONDENT.
PAREDES, J.:
appointment, as Justice of the Peace of Sariaya, Quezon Province,
presumably released on December 14, 1961. At the time of the
appointment, the position of Justice of the Peace of Sariaya, was
occupied by Dionisio Q. Vendiola, whose compulsory retirement, because
of age, was due on December 26, 1961. The law did not provide for the
position of auxiliary Justice of the Peace of Sariaya. Petitioner took
his oath of office on December 26, 1961, and entered into the
performance of his duties the day immediately following. On May 14,
1962, his appointment was confirmed by the Commission on Appointments.
He occupied the position from December 27, 1961 until October 30, 1962,
when respondent José J. Parentela, Jr., who was appointed ad interim
Justice of the Peace of Sariaya, by President Diosdado Macapagal on
October 19, 1962, took over the office. Claiming that respondent
wrongfully and unlawfully usurped the office and that there is no other
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law,
petitioner presented the instant Quo warranto proceedings,
with a prayer for the immediate issuance of a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction, to restrain respondent Parentela, Jr., from discharging and
performing the functions and duties of the Justice of the Peace of
Sariaya; and that after hearing, judgment be rendered, declaring him
(petitioner), the de jure Justice of the Peace. The ad interim appointment of herein respondent was confirmed by the Commission on Appointments on May 23, 1963.
This Court gave due course to the petition and required respondent
to answer within ten (10) days from receipt of summons. No injunction
was issued.
Answering the petition, respondent, thru the Solicitor General,
after admitting some allegations in the petition and denying others,
interposed special and affirmative defenses, to wit—
(1) petition does not state sufficient cause of action;
(2) appointment of petitioner is null and void, pursuant to the ruling of this Court in the Aytona vs.
Castillo case (L-19313, Jan. 19, 1962) and Administrative Order No. 2,
dated Dec. 30, 1961, of President Macapagal, declaring said
appointment, among others, of no effect;(3) appointment of
petitioner is also null and void, it appearing that the time petitioner
was appointed to the position, the same was not vacant;(4)
that at the time petitioner was appointed to the position, he did not
have the necessary qualifications as required by Republic Act No. 2613;
because he was admitted as member of the Philippine Bar only on May 9,
1959.
In the memorandum and other pleadings subsequently presented by him,
petitioner claimed that his appointment was not included among those
declared null and void in the Aytona-Castillo case, since he was
appointed on December 13, 1961 and only appointments made after
December 13, 1963 were invalidated by this Court. He admitted, that at
the date of his appointment, the position of Justice of the Peace of
Sariaya was still occupied by Vendiola, but he qualified only, after
the incumbent had retired on December 26, 1961; that while on the date
of his appointment he did not have the necessary qualifications as
required by Rep. Act No. 2613, upon his confirmation by the Commission
on Appointments, on May 14, 1962, such defect was cured.
It has been held that in quo warranto proceedings, the
person suing must show that he has a clear right to the office or to
use or exercise of the office allegedly usurped or unlawfully held by
respondent (Castro vs. Solidum, 97 Phil., 278; Dante vs. Dagpin, G .R. No. L-7784, Apr. 13, 1957), for quo warranto is a proceeding to determine questions of disputable title to public office (Remata vs.
Javier, 36 Phil., 483). In the case at bar, we find that petitioner
herein is not entitled to the office or to exercise its functions and
prerogatives.
As the time of appointment, petitioner did not have the necessary
qualifications for the office of a Justice of the Peace. This fact is
admitted by petitioner, but argues that at the time he was confirmed,
he already had all the qualifications. Pertinent provision of Republic
Act No. 2613, provides—
“No person shall be eligible for appointment as
Justice of the Peace unless he * * * (4) has been admitted by the
Supreme Court to the practice of law, and (5) has practiced law in the
Philippines for a period of not less than three years or has held
during a like period, within the Philippines an office requiring
admission to the practice of law in the Philippines as an indispensable
requisite.” (Sec. 71).
On December 13, 1961, petitioner was merely 2 years, 7 months and 4
days in the legal profession, having been admitted only on May 9, 1959.
Even on the date he was sworn in, on December 26, 1961, as ad interim Justice of the Peace, the petitioner was still lacking the legal qualifications, as such.
Finding that petitioner has not established a clear title and/or
right to the position in question, the Writ should be, as it is hereby
denied, without pronouncement as to costs.
Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L., Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Barrera, J., concurs in the result.