JESUS ARMANDO A.R. TARROSA vs. GABRIEL C. SINGSON and HON. SALVADOR M.

ENRIQUEZ III May 25, 1994 ~ QUIASON, J. Action: Petition for prohibition filed by petitioner as a "taxpayer" questioning the appointment of respondent Singson as BSP Governor for not having been confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. Relief sought: The petition seeks to enjoin Singson from the performance of his functions as such official until his appointment is confirmed; to enjoin Salvador M. Enriquez, Secretary of Budget and Management, from disbursing public funds in payment of the salaries and emoluments of respondent Singson Dispositive: DENIED Padilla, concurring: Appointments by the President of the Philippines, which under the Constitution (Sec. 16, Article VII) are not among those required to be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, may not, by legislation, be made subject to such confirmation. FACTS: - July 2, 1993: Singson was appointed by FVR as BSP Governor effective July 6, 1993 - The petition is anchored on the provisions of Section 6 of R.A. No. 7653, which established the Bangko Sentral as the Central Monetary Authority 1 of the Philippines. o COMMENT: Congress exceeded its legislative powers in requiring the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments Sec. 16 of Art. VII of the Constitution BSP has its own budget and accordingly, its budgetary requirements are not subject to the provisions of the General Appropriations Act. HELD: Petition is in the nature of a quo warranto proceeding as it seeks the ouster of respondent Singson and alleges that the latter is unlawfully holding or exercising the powers of Governor of the Bangko Sentral o Such a special civil action can only be commenced by the Solicitor General or by a "person claiming to be entitled to a public office or position unlawfully held or exercised by another" (no averment in this case) Action improvidently brought by petitioner o To uphold the action would encourage every disgruntled citizen to resort to the courts, thereby causing incalculable mischief and hindrance to the efficient operation of the governmental machinery The Court refrains from passing upon the constitutionality of Section 6, R.A. No. 7653 in
1

deference to the principle that bars a judicial inquiry into a constitutional question unless the resolution thereof is indispensable for the determination of the case

ELISEO F. SORIANO v. MA. CONSOLIZA P. LAGUARDIA, in her capacity as Chairperson of the MTRCB, MTRCB, et al. April 29, 2009 ~ VELASCO, JR., J Background: Ang Dating Daan host Eliseo S. Soriano uttered the following statements in his TV program against Michael Sandoval (Iglesia ni Cristos minister and regular host of the TV program Ang Tamang Daan): Lehitimong anak ng demonyo[!] Sinungaling [!]Gago ka talaga[,] Michael[!] [M]asahol ka pa sa putang babae[,] o di ba[?] []Yung putang babae[,] ang gumagana lang doon[,] []yung ibaba, dito kay Michael[,] ang gumagana ang itaas, o di ba? O, masahol pa sa putang babae []yan. Sobra ang kasinungalingan ng mga demonyong ito. As a result, The MTRCB initially slapped Sorianos Ang Dating Daan, which was earlier given a G rating for general viewership, with a 20-day preventive suspension after a preliminary conference. Later, in a decision, it found him liable for his utterances, and was imposed a three-month suspension from his TV program Ang Dating Daan. Soriano challenged the order of the MTRCB. HELD: The SC ruled that Sorianos statement can be treated as obscene, at least with respect to the average child, and thus his utterances cannot be considered as protected speech. Citing decisions from the US Supreme Court, the High Court said that the analysis should be context based and found the utterances to be obscene after considering the use of television broadcasting as a medium, the time of the show, and the G rating of the show, which are all factors that made the utterances susceptible to children viewers. The Court emphasized on how the uttered words could be easily understood by a child literally rather than in the context that they were used. The SC also said that the suspension is not a prior restraint, but rather a form of permissible administrative sanction or subsequent punishment. In affirming the power of the MTRCB to issue an order of suspension, the majority said that it is a sanction that the MTRCB may validly impose under its charter without running afoul of the free speech clause. visit fellester.blogspot.com The Court said that the suspension is not a prior restraint on the right of petitioner to continue with the broadcast of Ang Dating Daan as a permit was already issued to him by MTRCB, rather, it was a sanction for the indecent contents of his utterances in a G rated TV program.

Sec. 6. Composition of the Monetary Board. The powers and functions of the Bangko Sentral shall be exercised by the Bangko Sentral Monetary Board, hereafter referred to as the Monetary Board, composed of 7 members appointed by the President of the Philippines for a term of 6 years. The seven (7) members are: (a) The Governor of the Bangko Sentral, who shall be the Chairman of the Monetary Board. The Governor of the Bangko Sentral shall be head of a department and his appointment shall be subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.

PEDRO MENDOZA vs. RAY ALLAS and GODOFREDO OLORES February 4, 1999 ~ PUNO, J. CA: Denied Petition for certiorari and mandamus TC: denied Motion for Execution of its decision on the ground that the contested position vacated by

respondent Allas was now being occupied by respondent Godofredo Olores who was not a party to the quo warranto petition Dispositive: Denied. CA affirmed FACTS: - 1972: Mendoza joined the Bureau of Customs - (rose from the ranks) March 1, 1988, he was appointed Customs Service Chief of the Customs Intelligence and Investigation Service (CIIS). - 1989: the position of Customs Service Chief was reclassified by the Civil Service as "Director III" in accordance with RA 6758 and National Compensation Circular No. 50. o Petitioner's position was thus categorized as "Director III, CIIS" and he discharged the function and duties of said office. - April 22, 1993, petitioner was temporarily designated as Acting District Collector in Cagayan de Oro City. - In his place, respondent Ray Allas was appointed as "Acting Director III" of the CIIS. - Despite petitioner's new assignment as Acting District Collector, he continued to receive the salary and benefits of the position of Director III. - September 1994: petitioner received a letter from Deputy Customs Commissioner Dario, informing him of his termination from the Bureau of Customs, in view of respondent Allas' appointment as Director III by FVR - December 2, 1994: petitioner filed a petition for quo warranto against respondent Allas - TC: ordered Mendozas reinstatement as Director III, Customs Intelligence and Investigation Service, and the payment of his back salaries and benefits - Pending resolution by the CA: Allas was promoted to Deputy Commissioner of Customs for Assessment and Operations. Petitioner moved to dismiss respondent's appeal as having been rendered moot and academic >> Granted ISSUE: WON the favorable ruling in the quo warranto proceeding can be executed against the subsequent appointee to the office who was not party thereto HELD: NO. Under Rule 66, Quo warranto is a demand made by the state upon some 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. It may be commenced for the Government by the Solicitor general against individuals who usurp public office. It 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. The character of the judgment to be rendered in quo warranto rests to

some extent in the discretion of the court and on the relief sought. In the present case, the court found that Allas usurped the position of Director II and ordered that Allas be ousted from the position and Mendoza reinstated to the same. A judgment against a public officer in regard 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 from the nature of the writ of quo warranto itself. It is never directed to an officer as such, but always against the person 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.