DR. FLOR J. LACANILAO, PETITIONER, VS. CAPT. JUAN DE LEON (P.N.), RESPONDENT.

In this special civil action of quo warranto, petitioner
Dr. Flor J. Lacanilao
asserts that he is the lawful holder of the position of Chief of the Southeast
Asian Fisheries Development Center — Aquaculture Department, and seeks to
prevent Juan de Leon, a retired navy captain, from usurping and taking over or
occupying the said office and from exercising the functions and responsibilities
of such office.

The Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC) was
established by an Agreement that was signed in
Bangkok on 28 December 1967 by the Governments of the
following countries: 
Burma,
Cambodia,
Indonesia,
Japan,
Laos,
Malaysia, the
Philippines,
Singapore,
Thailand and
Vietnam.^[1] The general purpose of the SEAFDEC is “to
contribute to the promotion of the fisheries development in Southeast
Asia”,^[2] which purpose is to
be realized by carrying out the following functions:

“(i) 
to train fisheries technicians of the Southeast Asian
countries;

(ii) to study such fisheries techniques as
are suited to the fisheries in Southeast
Asia;

(iii) to develop fishing grounds and to
conduct investigation of fisheries resources and research in fisheries
oceanography in Southeast Asia;

(iv) to collect and analyze information
related to the fisheries in Southeast Asia;

(v)  to provide the Members
with the results of studies and researches by the Center and other information;
and

(vi) to handle other matters related to the
functions referred to in (i) to (v) of this
Article.”^[3]

The SEAFDEC has the following principal organs:  the
Council, where each member government is represented by one Director and an
Alternate Director; the Secretariat, which consists of a Secretary-General, a
Deputy Secretary-General and the Secretariat staff; and such Departments as may
be created by the Council.^[4] Each
Department consists of a Department-Chief, a Deputy Department-Chief and
Department staff.  In July
3-7, 1973, the SEAFDEC Council at its sixth meeting held in
Kuala Lumpur, approved the
establishment of an Aquaculture Department in the
province of
Iloilo,
Philippines. 
The Government of the Philippines has granted certain tax exemption
privileges to the Aquaculture Department of SEAFDEC as well as to foreign (non
Philippine) citizens serving on the technical and scientific staff of the
Aquaculture Department.^[5]

Under Article 6 (2) (vi) of the Agreement
Establishing the SEAFDEC, the power to appoint Department-Chiefs rests in the
Council of the SEAFDEC. Article 10 of the Agreement further provides:

xxx

xxx

xxx

2. The Department-Chief shall be appointed by the Council upon the
   recommendation of the government of the member country in whose territory the
   Department is located and the Deputy Department-Chief shall be appointed by
   the Council upon the recommendation of the government of
   Japan.

3. The term of Office of the Department-Chief and the Deputy
   Department-Chief shall be two years and they may be
   re-appointed.

4. The Department staff shall be appointed by the
   Department-Chief.

x x x”
(Underlining supplied)

Just before and immediately after the February 1986 revolution in
the country, the position of Department-Chief of the Aquaculture Department,
SEAFDEC, was held by Dr. Alfredo C. Santiago, Jr.  Dr. Santiago was
prevailed upon to withdraw as Chief of the Aquaculture Department and to
surrender his office to the petitioner.  By a letter dated
8 April 1986, the Minister of
Agriculture and Food, acting “by authority of the President”, nominated the
petitioner as Chief of the Aquaculture Department of SEAFDEC.^[6] This recommendation was immediately
transmitted to the Secretary-General of SEAFDEC, who holds office in
Bangkok,
Thailand.

By an urgent telex dated 8
April 1986 addressed to the petitioner, the Secretary-General of
SEAFDEC acknowledged receipt of the petitioner’s “nomination by the President of
the Philippines
as new Chief for the SEAFDEC AQD”.^[7] The
Secretary General advised the petitioner, in the same telex, that pending
Council approval of his nomination, the petitioner was requested “to serve as
[Officer-in-charge] for AQD effective today” and was authorized “to take
necessary actions to ensure orderly transfer of power in both administration and
finance”.

By another telex dated 11
April 1986, the Secretary General advised the petitioner that the
Secretariat had received the favorable vote of a majority of the members of the
Council, and that, consequently, under Article 7 (2) of the Agreement
Establishing the SEAFDEC, “the appointment of Dr. Flor
J. Lacanilao as AQD Chief [had been] approved by
SEAFDEC Council”.^[8] It appears that the
Council was not then in session and we assume that the members were canvassed by
telephone, telex or other comparable means and their votes obtained or
transmitted by the same means.^[9]

By a letter dated 13 June 1986, the Secretary General formally
advised the SEAFDEC Council Director for Japan (and presumably the Council
Directors for the other member countries) that “the Secretariat has received a
unanimous vote for the appointment of Dr. Flor J.
Lacanilao as Chief of the SEAFDEC Aquaculture
Department effective 8 April 1986, for a period of two years, as recommended by
the government of the Republic of the Philippines”.^[10]

Accordingly, the petitioner entered upon the discharge of the
functions and duties of Chief of the Aquaculture Department, SEAFDEC and
continued to do so from early April 1986 until about 21 November 1986.

On or about 21 November 1986, while Dr. Lacanilao was in Tokyo, Japan attending the annual SEAFDEC
Council meeting, the respondent, attended by groups of retainers and assistants,
entered and took physical possession of the different offices of the Aquaculture
Department, SEAFDEC, i.e., its Manila Liaison Office, its Research
Stations in Binangonan, Naujan, Tigbauan and Leganes, as well as its Iloilo Liaison Office. 
Having physically occupied the office of the Aquaculture Department, the
respondent instantly undertook to exercise the functions of the
Department-Chief, and in the process took immediate control of all purchases and
payments, stopped the issuance of checks, recalled all motor vehicles assigned
to various officers and agencies of the Department, immediately terminated the
services of all consultants of the Department and put his own followers in
charge of the various sections and agencies of the Department.

The petitioner and other previously appointed or designated
Aquaculture Department Officers and employees protested and have opposed and
resisted the respondent’s assertion of power and physical occupation of the
Aquaculture Department by the respondent and his followers who have refused to
vacate the offices and stations they have physically occupied.

On 25 November
1986, immediately upon his return from
Tokyo, Dr. Lacanilao filed in this Court a sworn Petition for Quo
Warranto with prayer for preliminary injunction dated 24 November 1986.  In the afternoon
of 26 November 1986, the petitioner filed an urgent ex-parte motion for
a temporary restraining order, stating that that morning, he had been served
with summons issued by Judge Eutropio Migriño of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 151, in Civil Case No. 54091 entitled
“Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center — Aquaculture Department et
al., vs. Flor J. Lacanilao,” together with a restraining order issued by
the same judge purporting to restrain the petitioner from discharging the
functions and exercising the privileges pertaining to the office of the Chief of
the Aquaculture Department, SEAFDEC, disbursing funds of the Aquaculture
Department, using any of its facilities and vehicles and otherwise acting in his
capacity of Chief of the Aquaculture Department.

On 27 November 1986, we issued a temporary restraining order
enjoining Judge Migriño from proceeding with Civil
Case No. 54091 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig,
Branch 151, and from implementing and enforcing his restraining order issued in
the said civil case, and further restraining the respondent Capt. Juan de Leon
from assuming and/or continuing to exercise the functions of the office of the
Chief of the Aquaculture Department, SEAFDEC, from intimidating the officers and
personnel of the SEAFDEC, in particular the use of armed men in such
intimidation, and from occupying and otherwise intervening in the functions and
activities of the Aquaculture Department.

In his Comment filed on 18 December 1986 on the Petition for
Quo Warranto in accordance with the resolution of this Court, the
respondent claims that he is entitled to the office of Chief of the Aquaculture
Department, SEAFDEC, by reason of a recommendation in his favor embodied in a
letter dated 12 November 1986 signed by the Vice President and Minister for
Foreign Affairs and addressed to the Secretary-General of SEAFDEC. This letter
reads as follows:

“The Government of the Republic of the
Philippines is
pleased to submit the nomination of Juan A. de Leon as Chief of the Aquaculture
Department of SEAFDEC for a two-year term vice Dr. Flor J. Lacanilao. 
This nomination is being submitted for consideration in the annual
meeting of the SEAFDEC Council of Directors scheduled in
Tokyo next week in accordance with
Article 10 of the SEAFDEC Agreement.

The term of Mr. de Leon shall take effect on November 21, 1986.  x x x“

Copies of this letter were apparently
sent to the SEAFDEC Council Directors for
Japan,
Malaysia,
Philippines,
Singapore and
Thailand.

In another letter also dated 12 November 1986, addressed to the
respondent, the Vice President and Minister for Foreign Affairs advised him that
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

“has approved your nomination as Chief of
the Aquaculture Department of the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center
(SEAFDEC) for a term of two years starting November 21, 1986.

In accordance with established procedure of the SEAFDEC nomination,
this Ministry has advised the Secretary-General of SEAFDEC regarding your
nomination.

You are, therefore, directed to assume the foregoing position
effective November 21,
1986, and to request, for this purpose, the assistance of government
offices and agencies concerned.”

It was under cover of this letter that
the respondent, about nine days later, launched his physical occupation of the
office of the Chief of the Aquaculture Department, with all the planning and
dispatch of a military campaign.

The receipt of the 12
November 1986 nomination of the respondent as Chief of the
Aquaculture Department, SEAFDEC, caused consternation in the SEAFDEC Council
meeting in Tokyo, where Dr. Lacanilao was present.  Objections were raised
and the Council refrained from acting on the respondent’s nomination. 
The formal response of the SEAFDEC Council is embodied in a letter dated
21 November 1986 addressed
by Mr. K. Kimura, Chairman of the SEAFDEC Council of Directors, to Mr. Juanito B. Malig, Council Director
for the
Philippines:

“I have the honour to refer to the
Secretary-General’s letter of 18 November 1986 informing the Council Directors
that the Vice President and Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Government of
the Philippines has officially submitted, by his letter of 12 November 1986, the
nomination of Mr. Juan A. De Leon as Chief of the Aquaculture Department,
effective 21 November 1986.

In this connection, you have mentioned to the Council Members that
neither the President of the Philippines nor the Minister of Agriculture and
Food have withdrawn support for Dr. F.J. Lacanilao,
appointed by the Council for a two-year term effective 8 April 1986, as Chief of
AQD.

I therefore would like to convey to you the unanimous agreement of
the Council Members asking you to seek further clarification on this matter and
inform SEAFDEC Council accordingly.”^[11]

We note from this letter that the SEAFDEC
Council of Directors has not approved the nomination of respondent as
Chief of the Aquaculture Department. So far as the records of this case in this
Court show, the SEAFDEC Council has not taken any further action on such
nomination.

The recommendation in favor of the respondent must be regarded as
legally ineffective for the fundamental reason that there existed no vacancy to
which the respondent could be nominated by the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines and
to which the respondent could be appointed by the SEAFDEC Council. 
Notwithstanding the insinuations of the respondent, we have no doubt that
Dr. Lacanilao was lawfully entitled to hold the
position of the Chief of the Aquaculture Department, SEAFDEC, as of 21 November
1986 when the respondent and his assistants and retainers introjected themselves in the offices of the Aquaculture
Department.  Until the tenure of the petitioner is lawfully
terminated in accordance with the laws and regulations governing such tenure, no
nomination for the same position can be approved and given effect. 
It is clear that the nomination of the respondent for a position then
lawfully filled in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement Establishing
the SEAFDEC, did not have the effect of removing or otherwise terminating the
two-year term of the petitioner.  The power to appoint
having been vested by Article 6 of the SEAFDEC Agreement in the Council, the
power to remove must likewise be deemed lodged in the Council, and not
in the nominating member-government.  It is worth noting that under
Article 6 (2) of the Agreement, the power to appoint the
Department-Chiefs and the Deputy Department-Chiefs cannot be delegated
by the Council to the Secretary-General.  It follows, under the
present terms of the SEAFDEC Agreement, that the power to remove cannot
similarly be delegated to the Secretary-General.

It has been suggested by the respondent that a nomination by the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines to the office of the Chief of the
Aquaculture Department should be regarded as equivalent to an appointment to
such position, upon the ground that “by established diplomatic procedure (sic),
the appointment to be made by the SEAFDEC Council based on such
nomination or recommendation would be merely ministerial as the
Council, again by force of international procedure (sic) could not
override or reject such nomination.”^[12] This suggestion of the respondent is
bereft of any basis in the Agreement Establishing the SEAFDEC and indeed flies
in the face of Article 10 (2) of that Agreement.  Under Article 10
(2) of the Agreement, two distinct acts are essential for a Department-Chief to
be lawfully entitled to his position as such:  the
recommendation of the government of the member country in whose
territory the department is located; and the appointment to such
position by the SEAFDEC Council.  The recommendation by the
government of the member country must be accepted by the Council; a
Department-Chief must be acceptable to both the host government and the Council
of the SEAFDEC.  If it be assumed that the SEAFDEC Council has in
the past uniformly accepted the recommendations of the government of the host
member country, that circumstance assuredly does not mean that the
SEAFDEC Council cannot, under its constitutional document, reject such a
recommendation.  Neither can it be supposed that the recommendation
by the government of the host member country, by itself and without more, would
be sufficient to vest lawful title to the office concerned.  It
follows that the recommendation dated 12 November 1986 in favor of the respondent cannot, in and
of itself, be regarded as lawfully authorizing him to assume the office of the
Chief of the Aquaculture Department, SEAFDEC, and to exclude the petitioner from
that same office.

We hold, accordingly, that the petitioner is entitled to the
position of Chief of the Aquaculture Department, SEAFDEC, for the duration of
his term or until that term is otherwise ended conformably with applicable law,
including applicable regulations of the SEAFDEC.

The respondent also argues that the position of Chief of the
Aquaculture Department, SEAFDEC, is not a “public office” and therefore not a
proper subject of inquiry in a quo warranto proceeding. 
The respondent further asserts that the Aquaculture Department, SEAFDEC,
is not a corporation and that the office of the Chief of the Aquaculture
Department is not therefore a corporate position.  These arguments
need not detain us for long.  It is not necessary for us here to
determine the precise nature of the position of Chief of the Aquaculture
Department, SEAFDEC.  The SEAFDEC exhibits some of the features of
an intergovernmental organization, albeit of a fairly rudimentary type. 
Thus, the position of the Chief of the Aquaculture Department may be
assimilated to a position within an intergovernmental organization. 
There appears nothing to prevent the petitioner, as the lawful holder of
an office within an international organization having offices within the
territory of the
Philippines,
from seeking the assistance of the courts of the
Philippines in
protecting his right to such office against the pretensions of the respondent.
The respondent himself sought the assistance of the Regional Trial Court,
Pasig,
Branch 151, by filing a complaint for injunction and damages, in attempting to
prevent the petitioner from continuing to exercise the rights and
responsibilities attaching to the position of Chief of the Aquaculture
Department.  In his complaint for injunction, the respondent made
allegations entirely analogous to those made in petitioner’s Quo
Warranto petition:  his own right to the office, and the
defendant’s (petitioner herein) lack of right to the same office.

We would note, finally, that the present petition relates to a
controversy between two claimants to the same position; this is not a
controversy between the SEAFDEC on the one hand, and an officer or employee, or
a person claiming to be an officer or employee, of the SEAFDEC, on the other
hand.  There is before us no question involving immunity from the
jurisdiction of the Court, there being no plea for such immunity whether by or
on behalf of SEAFDEC, or by an official of SEAFDEC with the consent of
SEAFDEC.

The present controversy has created considerable confusion and
anxiety among the officers and employees of the Aquaculture Department and
threatens the paralization of the important
activities, and dissipation of funds and assets, of that Department. 
This controversy should be resolved forthwith.  In the
exercise of the broad jurisdiction of this Court and in the interest of prompt
and substantial justice, we treat the petition in this case as a petition for
injunction, the respondent’s comment as his answer thereto and dispose of the
case accordingly.

WHEREFORE, the respondent is hereby enjoined from assuming
the position and from discharging, or continuing to
discharge, directly or indirectly, the powers and functions of the Chief of the
Aquaculture Department, SEAFDEC.  All acts, contracts and
directives done or issued by the respondent, or by persons apppointed or designated by
him, are invalid and ineffective unless adopted or ratified by the petitioner or
other competent authority of the Aquaculture Department, SEAFDEC. 
The Temporary Restraining Order we issued on 27 November 1986 is hereby made permanent. 
No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Alampay, Gutierrez, Jr., Paras,
Gancayco, Padilla, and Bidin, JJ., concur.

Teehankee,
C.J., with brief concurrence.

Yap, J., see
concurring opinion.

Cruz, J., see
dissent.

^[2] Article 1, Agreement Establishing
the SEAFDEC.

^[3] Article 2,
Id.

^[4] Articles 4, 5, 8 and 10,
Id.

^[5] Presidential Decree No. 292, dated
13 September 1973.

^[6] Annex “B” of Petition for Quo
Warranto.

^[7] Annex “C”,
Id.

^[8] Annex “D”, Id. Article 7
(2) of the Agreement Establishing the SEAFDEC provides that “except as otherwise
provided [therein], all matters before the Council shall be decided by a
majority of the Members present and voting.”

^[9] We note in this connection that
Article 7 (5) of the Agreement Establishing the SEAFDEC expressly authorizes the
adoption of such a procedure:  “The Council may, by regulation,
establish a procedure whereby the Chairman of the Council may, when the latter
deems such action advisable, obtain a vote of the Directors on a specific
question without calling a meeting of  the Council.” (Underscoring
supplied).

^[10] Annex “E” of Petition for Quo
Warranto; this same letter is attached as Annex “2” of the Comment, dated
18 December 1986, filed by the Respondent on the Petition for Quo
Warranto.

^[11] Respondent’s Comment dated
18 December 1986

^[12] Comment, dated 18 December
1986, p. 23; underlining supplied.

CONCURRING

YAP, J.:

I concur with the following observations.

I subscribe to the position that the prerogative
writ of quo warranto would not lie to determine who between the
competing parties should occupy the Office of the Chief of the Aquaculture
Department, SEAFDEC, the said office not being a public office in
the Republic of the Philippines or an office in a corporation created by
authority of Philippine law.  The determination of such matter lies
within the prerogative of the SEAFDEC Council.  However, the facts
of the case show that the Philippine Government was advised on April 11, 1986 by
the Secretary General of SEAFDEC that the appointment of the petitioner as AQD
Chief had been approved by the SEAFDEC Council.  Until that
appointment is revoked or changed by SEAFDEC and properly notified to the
Philippine Government, the petitioner is entitled to be protected by the
Philippine authorities, including the courts, from being disturbed in the lawful
exercise of his functions as AQD Chief of SEAFDEC.  Hence, the
action of this Court is merely to grant an injunctive relief and should not be
viewed as an encroachment upon the undisputed prerogative of the SEAFDEC Council
to appoint the Chief of the Aquaculture Department which is located in the
Philippines.