G.R. No. L-3059; August 2, 1949
VICENTE G. CRUZ, et al., petitioners, vs. PLACIDO RAMOS, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners are elected members of the Manila Municipal Board for a term expiring on December 31, 1951. They filed an original petition for quo warranto against respondents, who were appointed by the President as additional members of the Board pursuant to Republic Act No. 409 (Revised Charter of Manila), which increased the Board’s membership from ten to twelve. Petitioners argued that RA 409 is unconstitutional for violating Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution , as it apportioned legislative districts through piecemeal legislation. They also contended that the appointments unlawfully increased the quorum, thereby diluting their voting power.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners have a valid cause of action for quo warranto to challenge the constitutionality of RA 409 and the appointments made thereunder.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that petitioners lacked a valid cause of action for quo warranto. Under Rule 68 of the Rules of Court, an action for usurpation of a public office may be brought by an individual only if the person claims to be entitled to the specific office allegedly usurped. Here, petitioners did not claim entitlement to the offices held by respondents; they merely asserted that the appointments were unconstitutional and diluted their collective voting power. The Court ruled that the increase in board membership did not diminish any individual right of the petitioners, such as emoluments or voting participation. The proper remedy was to request the Solicitor General to bring the action in the name of the Republic. Since petitioners lacked standing, the Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of RA 409.

AI Generated by Armztrong.