G.R. No. L-11600; June 27, 1958
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. IÑIGO PABLICO CORPIN, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

The Republic of the Philippines, through the Provincial Fiscal of Tacloban, Leyte, and upon the relation of Jose Napalit, filed a complaint for quo warranto on June 20, 1956, seeking to exclude Iñigo Pablico Corpin from the Office of Municipal Mayor of Biliran, Leyte, on the ground that he was not a Filipino citizen. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that Jose Napalit, the same relator, had previously filed a similar quo warranto petition against him on the same ground of ineligibility, which case had been decided by the Court of First Instance in favor of the defendant and was pending appeal before the Court of Appeals. The Provincial Fiscal opposed the motion, arguing that the Republic was not a party in the first case. The trial court, after allowing the withdrawal of the motion to dismiss and the filing of an opposition, issued an order on September 17, 1956, denying permission to commence the present action. The court based its denial on two grounds: (1) the petition was filed long after the one-week period after proclamation required by Section 173 of the Election Code, and (2) there was a pending resolution by the Court of Appeals in the earlier quo warranto case (CA- G.R. No. 16375 ) filed by Jose Napalit against the same defendant, which decision would be decisive on the issues involved. The Republic appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in denying permission to commence the quo warranto action filed by the Republic upon the relation of Jose Napalit, considering the pendency of a prior quo warranto case filed by the same relator against the same defendant involving the same issue of citizenship and eligibility for the same public office.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court. It held that the pendency of the earlier quo warranto case, which was filed by the same relator (Jose Napalit) against the same defendant (Iñigo Pablico Corpin) and which involved the identical issue of whether the defendant was a Filipino citizen eligible for the office of municipal mayor, could be pleaded in abatement of the present action. A final decision in that first case, either by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, would definitively resolve the issue and constitute res judicata. The Court noted that the Government, in its petition before the trial court, had invoked Section 4, Rule 68 of the Rules of Court (which requires court permission for a quo warranto action brought by the Solicitor General or fiscal upon the relation of another person) and had asked for leave of court, and thus could not later charge the trial court with error for applying that section. The Court further ruled that the granting or denial of permission to file such a suit under Rule 68, Section 4 rests largely in the discretion of the trial court, especially when the suit is instituted upon the relation and at the instance of the same party who filed the first quo warranto proceedings. The belated second action by the Government was deemed unnecessary.