MENDOZA V. ALLAS (REMEDIAL)

QUO WARRANTO is a demand made by the State upon individual or corporation to show by what right they exercise some franchise individual or corporation to show by what right they exercise some franchise or privilege appertaining to the State, which, according to the Constitution and laws of the land, they cannot legally exercise except by virtue of a grant or authority from the State,

In other words, a petition for quo warranto is a proceeding to determine the right of a person to the use or exercise of a franchise or office and to oust the holder from its enjoyment, if his claim is not well-founded, or if he has forfeited his right to enjoy the privilege.

The action may be commenced for the Government by the Solicitor General or the fiscal against individuals who usurp a public office, against a public officer whose acts constitute a ground for the forfeiture of his office, and against an association which acts a corporation without being legally incorporated.

The action may also be instituted by an individual in his own name who claims to be entitled to the public office or position usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another.

Where the action is filed by a private person, he must prove that he is entitled to the controverted position,otherwise, respondent has a right to the undisturbed possession of the office. If the court finds for the respondent, the judgment should simply state that the respondent is entitled to the office. If however, the court finds for the petitioner and declares the respondent guilty of usurping, intruding into, or unlawfully holding or exercising the office, the court may order:

1. the ouster and exclusion of the defendant from office;
2. the recovery of costs by plaintiff or relator; or
3. the determination of the respective rights in and to the office, position, right, privilege, or franchise of all the parties to the action as justice requires.

Ordinarily, a judgment against a public officer in regards to a public right binds his successor in office. This rule, however, is not applicable in quo warranto cases. A judgment in quo warranto does not bind the respondent's successor in office, even though such successor may trace his title to the same source, This follows the nature of the writ of quo warranto itself. It is never directed to an officer as such but always against the persons - to determine whether he is constitutionally and legally authorized to perform any act in, or exercise any function of the office to which he lays claim.

In the case at bar, the petition for quo warranto was filed by the petitioner solely against respondent Allas. What was threshed out before the trial court was the qualification and right of petitioner to the contested position as against respondent Allas, not Olores.

FVR appointed Allas in the position held by Mendoza. During appeal, Allas was appointed to another office. Appeal was recalled. Appeal became moot and academic. Judgment could no longer be executed because the usurper is no longer in office. Judgment of quo warranto is directed against the person and not the office.

Unpaid salaries, Mendoza got nothing; cannot be paid. Salaries of government employees need appropriation and the salaries of the said office have already been disbursed.