G.R. No. 179895 , December 18, 2008.
FERDINAND S. TOPACIO, petitioner, vs. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN GREGORY SANTOS ONG and THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ferdinand S. Topacio filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to prevent Associate Justice Gregory Santos Ong from further exercising the powers of a Sandiganbayan Justice. This stemmed from the Supreme Court’s prior decision in Kilosbayan Foundation v. Ermita, which enjoined Ong from accepting an appointment to the Supreme Court until he proved his natural-born Filipino citizenship through appropriate court proceedings. Ong subsequently filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig to correct his birth certificate. Topacio, invoking the constitutional requirement that members of the Sandiganbayan must be natural-born citizens, requested the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to initiate a quo warranto proceeding against Ong. The OSG declined, opting to await the final outcome of the RTC case. Topacio assailed this refusal as grave abuse of discretion and sought to halt Ong’s judicial functions. Ong informed the Court that the RTC had already granted his petition, recognizing him as a natural-born citizen, and argued that this retroactive recognition cured any prior defect.

ISSUE

1. Whether the OSG committed grave abuse of discretion in deferring the filing of a quo warranto petition against Justice Ong.
2. Whether the writs of certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies to oust Justice Ong from his position based on alleged disqualification due to citizenship.

RULING

1. On the OSG’s Discretion: The Court ruled that the OSG did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Solicitor General has broad discretion in deciding whether to institute quo warranto proceedings and may validly defer action pending the resolution of a related case (the RTC proceeding on Ong’s citizenship) to avoid re-litigation and forum-shopping. The OSG’s decision was a prudent exercise of its duty to act in the best interest of the State.
2. On the Propriety of Certiorari and Prohibition: The Court held that the petition for certiorari and prohibition was improper. The core issue—Ong’s title to office—is quintessentially a quo warranto matter. Certiorari and prohibition are remedies directed against the exercise of judicial or ministerial functions, not to directly try title to a public office. The proper remedy to challenge Ong’s eligibility is a quo warranto proceeding, which must be filed within one year from the cause of ouster or from the time the right to hold office arose. Since Ong was appointed in 1998, any quo warranto action was already time-barred. Furthermore, the Court noted that the RTC decision, which recognized Ong as a natural-born citizen, had become final and operated retroactively to his birth, thereby curing any prior defect in his qualification. The petition was dismissed.