Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 212 views

    Mendoza V Allas

    Uploaded by

    Cristelle Elaine Collera
    1. Pedro Mendoza filed a petition for quo warranto against Rey Allas for the position of Director III of the Customs Intelligence and Investigation Service (CIIS) that Allas had been appointed to instead of reinstating Mendoza. 2. The trial court ruled in favor of Mendoza and ordered Allas' ouster and Mendoza's reinstatement. However, Allas was later promoted and the position vacated. 3. When Mendoza sought execution of the trial court decision, the Court of Appeals denied it. A judgment in quo warranto does not bind the successor of the respondent not party to the case. The petition determined Allas' qualification for the position

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Mendoza V Allas

    Uploaded by

    Cristelle Elaine Collera
    212 views1 page
    1. Pedro Mendoza filed a petition for quo warranto against Rey Allas for the position of Director III of the Customs Intelligence and Investigation Service (CIIS) that Allas had been appointed to instead of reinstating Mendoza. 2. The trial court ruled in favor of Mendoza and ordered Allas' ouster and Mendoza's reinstatement. However, Allas was later promoted and the position vacated. 3. When Mendoza sought execution of the trial court decision, the Court of Appeals denied it. A judgment in quo warranto does not bind the successor of the respondent not party to the case. The petition determined Allas' qualification for the position

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Mendoza v Allas

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Pedro Mendoza filed a petition for quo warranto against Rey Allas for the position of Director III of the Customs Intelligence and Investigation Service (CIIS) that Allas had been appointed to instead of reinstating Mendoza. 2. The trial court ruled in favor of Mendoza and ordered Allas' ouster and Mendoza's reinstatement. However, Allas was later promoted and the position vacated. 3. When Mendoza sought execution of the trial court decision, the Court of Appeals denied it. A judgment in quo warranto does not bind the successor of the respondent not party to the case. The petition determined Allas' qualification for the position

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    212 views1 page

    Mendoza V Allas

    Uploaded by

    Cristelle Elaine Collera
    1. Pedro Mendoza filed a petition for quo warranto against Rey Allas for the position of Director III of the Customs Intelligence and Investigation Service (CIIS) that Allas had been appointed to instead of reinstating Mendoza. 2. The trial court ruled in favor of Mendoza and ordered Allas' ouster and Mendoza's reinstatement. However, Allas was later promoted and the position vacated. 3. When Mendoza sought execution of the trial court decision, the Court of Appeals denied it. A judgment in quo warranto does not bind the successor of the respondent not party to the case. The petition determined Allas' qualification for the position

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    MENDOZA v.

    ALLAS HELD:
    G.R. No. 131977 (1999)
     Ordinarily, a judgment against a public officer in regard to a public right
    binds his successor in office.
    FACTS:  This rule, however, is not applicable in quo warranto cases.
    o A judgment in quo warranto does not bind the respondent’s
    1. Pedro Mendoza joined the Bureau of Customs in 1972 and was successor in office, even though such successor may trace his
    appointed Customs Service Chief of the Customs Intelligence and title to the same source.
    Investigation Service (CIIS) in March 1998. o This follows from the nature of the writ of quo warranto itself. It
    2. By 1999 his position was reclassified as “Director III” by the Civil is never directed to an officer as such, but always against the
    Service Commission in accordance to Republic Act No. 6758 and person– to determine whether he is constitutionally and legally
    National Compensation Circular No. 50. authorized to perform any act in, or exercise any function of the
    o His position was thus categorized as “Director III, CIIS.” office to which he lays claim.
    3. On April 1993, he was temporarily designated as “Acting District
     In the case at bar, the petition for quo warranto was filed by petitioner
    Collector, Collection District X, Cagayan de Oro City.” Rey Allas was solely against respondent Allas.
    appointed as “Acting Director III” of the CIIS. o What was threshed out before the trial court was the
    4. By September 1994, Mendoza received a letter informing him of his
    qualification and right of petitioner to the contested position as
    termination and lieu of Allas’ appointment as Director III by President against respondent Ray Allas, not against Godofredo Olores.
    FVR. The Court of Appeals did not err in denying execution of the
    5. Mendoza wrote to Customer Commissioner demanding his trial court’s decision.
    reinstatement and back wages. No reply was made.
    6. By December 1994, he filed a petition for quo warranto against Allas in
    RTC Paranaque. His petition was granted in September 1995.
    o The court ordered the ouster of Allas and the reinstatement of DISPOSITIVE: Denied.
    Mendoza. Allas appealed the decision.
    7. By February 1996, Allas was promoted by President FVR as Deputy
    Commissioner of Customs for Assessment and Operations. Allas moved
    for the dismissal of the case for being moot and academic. CA granted.
    8. On May 1996, Mendoza filed a Motion for Execution of its decision.
    Court denied on the ground that Allas’ position was vacated and now
    occupied by Godofredo Olores who was not party to the quo warranto
    petition.
    9. Mendoza filed special civil action for certiorari and mandamus with CA.
    CA denied.

    ISSUE: WON CA grossly erred in holding that a writ of execution may no


    longer be issued, considering that respondent Olores who was not a party
    to the case now occupies the subject position – No.

    You might also like