Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TOPACIO v. ONG

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 185224 2015-07-29	AMELIA CARMELA CONSTANTINO ZOLETA v. SANDIGANBAYAN BRION, J.
In its Comment,[10] the People countered that Kilosbayan merely required Justice Ong to complete "all necessary steps, through the appropriate adversarial proceedings in court, to show that he is a natural-born Filipino citizen and correct the records of his birth and citizenship." It added that Kilosbayan did not categorically rule that Justice Ong was not a natural-born Filipino who was disqualified from accepting an appointment to the position of Associate Justice of this Court. The People further pointed out that the Court in Topacio v. Ong[11] already acknowledged Justice Ong's actual physical possession and exercise of the functions of the office of an Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan.
	GR No. 191672 2014-11-25	DENNIS A. B. FUNA v. CHAIRMAN BERSAMIN, J.
In view of the application of the prohibition under Section 2, Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution, Duque did not validly hold office as Director or Trustee of the GSIS, PHILHEALTH, ECC and HDMF concurrently with his position of CSC Chairman. Accordingly, he was not to be considered as a de jure officer while he served his term as Director or Trustee of these GOCCs. A de jure officer is one who is deemed, in all respects, legally appointed and qualified and whose term of office has not expired.[48]
	GR No. 191644 2013-02-19	DENNIS A.B. FUNA v. ACTING SECRETARY OF JUSTICE ALBERTO C. AGRA BERSAMIN, J.
In view of the application of the stricter prohibition under Section 13, supra, Agra did not validly hold the position of Acting Secretary of Justice concurrently with his holding of the position of Acting Solicitor General. Accordingly, he was not to be considered as a de jure officer for the entire period of his tenure as the Acting Secretary of Justice. A de jure officer is one who is deemed, in all respects, legally appointed and qualified and whose term of office has not expired.[49]
	GR No. 168053 2011-09-21	REBECCA T. ARQUERO v. CA PERALTA, J.
A quo warranto proceeding is the proper legal remedy to determine the right or title to the contested public office and to oust the holder from its enjoyment.[43] It is brought against the person who is alleged to have usurped, intruded into, or unlawfully held or exercised the public office.[44] It may be brought by the Republic of the Philippines or by the person claiming to be entitled to such office.[45]
	GR No. 191560 2011-03-29	LUIS MARIO M. GENERAL v. ALEJANDRO S. URRO BRION, J.
As early as 1905,[66] the Court already held that for a petition for quo warranto to be successful, the suing private individual must show a clear right to the contested office.[67] His failure to establish this right warrants the dismissal of the suit for lack of cause of action; it is not even necessary to pass upon the right of the defendant who, by virtue of his appointment, continues in the undisturbed possession of his office.[68]
	GR No. 178678 2009-04-16	DR. HANS CHRISTIAN M. SEÑERES v. COMELEC VELASCO JR., J.
Authorities are almost unanimous that one who continues with the discharge of the functions of an office after the expiration of his or her legal term--no successor having, in the meantime, been appointed or chosen--is commonly regarded as a de facto officer, even where no provision is made by law for his holding over and there is nothing to indicate the contrary.[37] By fiction of law, the acts of such de facto officer are considered valid and effective.[38]