Decision 15 G.R. No. 237428
The impeachment complaint was endorsed by several members of the House and, thereafter, was found to be sufficient in form and substance. The respondent filed her answer to the impeachment complaint. After the filing of the reply and the rejoinder, the House Committee on Justice conducted several hearings on the determination of probable cause, the last of which was held on February 27, 2018.(57)
During these hearings, it was revealed that respondent purportedly failed to file her SALNs while she was a member of the faculty of the U.P. College of Law and that she filed her SALN only for the years 1998, 2002 and 2006. During the hearing on February 7, 2018 of the House Committee on Justice, Justice Peralta, as a resource person being then the acting
ex-officio Chairman of the JBC, further claimed that during the JBC deliberations in 2012, he was not made aware that respondent submitted incomplete SALNs nor that respondent's letter dated July 23, 2012 to the JBC was ever deliberated upon.(58) This was confirmed by Atty. Fernan Cayosa;(59) by Atty. Capacite, who emphasized that based on the rubber stamp received, only the offices of the JBC regular members, the ORSN and the OEO were furnished copies of the letter;(60) and by Atty. Pascual on the basis of the transmittal letter.(61)
The foregoing sworn declarations made during the hearings before the House Committee on Justice spawned two relevant incidents: one, the proposal of the House Committee for this Court to investigate on the proceedings of the JBC relative to the nomination of respondent as Chief Justice which is now presently docketed as A.M. No. 17-11-12 and A.M. No. 17-11-17-SC; and two, the Letter(62) dated February 21, 2018 of Atty. Eligio Mallari to the OSG requesting that the latter, in representation of the Republic, initiate a
quo warranto proceeding against respondent.
Thus, the present petition.
The Case for the Republic
The Republic, through the OSG, claims that an action for
quo warranto is the proper remedy to question the validity of respondent's appointment. It alleges that the instant petition is seasonably filed within the one-year reglementary period under Section 11, Rule 66,(63) of the Rules of
-------
57 Id. at 176-177.
58 TSN dated February 7, 2018, VI-3, Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives.
59 TSN dated Febraury 12, 2018, LCLV, XIII-2, Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives.
60 TSN dated February 12, 2018, HLEF, XXII-3, Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives.
61 TSN dated February 12, 2018, LCLV, XXVIIl-4, Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives.
62 Id. at 93-94.
63 Sec. 11. Limitations. - Nothing contained in this Rule shall be construed to authorize an action against a public officer or employee for his ouster from office unless the same be commenced within one (l) year after the cause of such ouster, or the right of the petitioner to hold such office or position, arose, nor to authorize an action for damages in accordance with the provisions of the next preceding section unless the same be commenced within one (1) year after the entry of the judgment establishing the petitioner's right to the office in question.
Linkback:
https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=89595.0