No. L-28184. September 11, 1980
Main Topic – Rule 65.
Garcia filed with the Civil Service Commission, a protest against the appointment of the Perez on the ground that she was next in rank better qualified and entitled to preferential appointment to the position of Senior Clerk. The CSC approved the appointment of Perez. Garcia then filed a petition for quo warranto with Court of First Instance of Manila, questioning the authority of Perez. to occupy and discharge the duties of the position of Senior Clerk in the Fiscal Management and Budget Division. The court a quo dismissed the complaint on the ground that the petitioner does not claim to be entitled to the position but she merely asserted a ‘preferential right’ to be appointed thereto. Under the situation, the petitioner has no cause of action against the respondent.
Whether or not the petitioner has the right to bring a quo warranto proceeding questioning the legality of the appointment of the respondent.
No, one whose claim is predicated solely upon a more or less remoted possibility, that he may be the recipient of the appointment, has no cause of action against the office holder. Nothing is better settled than that a petitioner in a quo warranto proceeding to try title to a public office, must be able to show that he is entitled to said office, Absent such an element, the petition must be dismissed.
In a quo warranto proceeding involving title to a public office, the petitioner must show that he is entitled thereto not merely that she has a preferential right to be appointed to the office in question.