AN ACTING APPOINTEE HAS NO CAUSE OF ACTION TO FILE A PETITION FOR QUO WARRANTO AGAINST THE NEW APPOINTEE:

Quo warranto is a remedy to try disputes with respect to the title to a public office. Generally, quo warranto proceedings are commenced by the Government as the proper party-plaintiff. However, under Section 5, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, an individual may commence such action if he claims to be entitled to the public office allegedly usurped by another. The Supreme Court stressed that the person instituting the quo warranto proceedings in his own behalf must show that he is entitled to the office in dispute; otherwise, the action may be dismissed at any stage. Emphatically, Section 6, Rule 66 requires the petitioner to  state in  the  petition his right to the public office and the respondent's unlawful possession of the disputed position. As early as 1905, the Court already held that for a petition for quo warranto to be successful, the suing private individual must show a clear right to the contested office. His failure to establish this right warrants the dismissal of the suit for lack of cause of action; it is not even necessary to pass upon the right of the defendant who, by virtue of his appointment, continues in the undisturbed possession of his office. Since the petitioner merely holds an acting appointment (and an expired one at that), he clearly does not have a cause of action to maintain the present petition. (HON. LUIS MARIO M. GENERAL, COMMISSIONER, NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION,VS. HON. ALEJANDRO S. URRO ET AL., G.R. NO. 191560, MARCH 29, 2011, BRION, J.).