Quo Warranto (Rule 66)

Actions of quo warranto against persons who usurp an office in a corporation, which were formerly cognizable by the Securities and Exchange Commission under PD 902-A, have been transferred to the courts of general jurisdiction. But, this does not change the fact that Rule 66 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure does not apply to quo warranto cases against persons who usurp an office in a private corporation.

Quo warranto proceedings determine the right of a person to the use or exercise of a franchise or an office and to oust the holder from its enjoyment, if the latter’s claim is not well-founded, or if he has forfeited his right to enjoy the privilege.

In the instance in which the petition for quo warranto is filed by an individual in his own name, he must be able to prove that he is entitled to the controverted public office, position, or franchise; otherwise, the holder of the same has a right to the undisturbed possession thereof. In actions for quo warranto to determine title to a public office, the complaint, to be sufficient in form, must show that the plaintiff is entitled to the office.

An action for quo warranto may be dismissed at any stage when it becomes apparent that the plaintiff is not entitled to the disputed public office, position or franchise.

Hence, the RTC is not compelled to still proceed with the trial when it is already apparent on the face of the petition for quo warranto that it is insufficient. The RTC may already dismiss said petition at this point. (Calleja vs. Panday, G.R. No. 168696. February 28, 2006; Feliciano vs. Villasin, G.R. No. 174929, June 27, 2008)