GR L 16263; (July, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-16263; July 26, 1960
DR. JOSE CUYEGKENG, ET AL., petitioners, vs. DR. PEDRO M. CRUZ, as member of Board of Medical Examiners, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners Dr. Jose Cuyegkeng, et al., and intervenors (the Executive Council of the Philippine Medical Association) initiated a quo warranto proceeding. Their cause of action was based on Section 13 of Republic Act No. 2382 (The Medical Act of 1959), which required the President to appoint members of the Board of Medical Examiners from a confidential list of not more than twelve names approved and submitted by the Executive Council of the Philippine Medical Association. On October 16, 1959, the Council submitted a revised list of twelve qualified physicians, which included the petitioners. However, on November 18, 1959, the President appointed six individuals to the Board, five of whom were on the list, and one—respondent Dr. Pedro M. Cruz—who was not on the list. The petitioners and intervenors argued that the President’s appointment of Dr. Cruz, a person not named in the submitted list, was illegal and void under the mandatory terms of Section 13.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners and intervenors have a valid cause of action in a quo warranto proceeding to challenge the appointment of respondent Dr. Pedro M. Cruz to the Board of Medical Examiners.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition for quo warranto. The Court held that under Section 6, Rule 68 of the Rules of Court, a quo warranto action may only be brought by a person claiming to be entitled to the public office allegedly usurped or unlawfully held by another. In this case, none of the petitioners claimed to be entitled to the office held by respondent Dr. Cruz. None of them had been appointed to that office, and their claim was merely a right to be considered for appointment. With seven petitioners and only one office in dispute, none could assure they would be the appointee if the office were declared vacant. Their claim was based on a potential, not an actual, right to the office. Similarly, the intervenors’ right was limited to submitting a list of recommendees, which did not entitle them to question the respondent’s title to the office. Therefore, the petitioners and intervenors lacked a cause of action for quo warranto. The writ was denied, with costs against the petitioners.