IV.

SPECIFIC: MANDAMUS VS QUO WARRANTO Petitioner Fabian was appointed Election Registrar of the Municipality of Sevilla supposedly to replace the respondent Election Registrar Pablo who was transferred to another municipality without his consent and who refused to accept his aforesaid transfer, much less to vacate his position in Bogo town as election registrar, as in fact he continued to occupy his aforesaid position and exercise his functions thereto. Petitioner Fabian then filed a petition for mandamus against Pablo but the trial court dismissed Fabians petition contending that quo warranto is the proper remedy. Is the court correct in its ruling? Why? (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, the court is correct in its ruling. Mandamus will not lie. This remedy applies only where petitioners right is founded clearly in law, not when it is doubtful. Pablo was transferred without his consent which is tantamount to removal without cause, contrary to the fundamental guarantee on nonremoval except for cause. Considering that Pedro continued to occupy the disputed position and exercise his functions therein, the proper remedy is quo warranto, not mandamus. {Garces v. Court of Appeals, 259 SCRA 99 (1996)] ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Yes, the court is correct in its ruling. Mandamus lies when the respondent unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office

to which such other is entitled. (Sec. 2, Rule 65). In this case, Pablo has not unlawfully excluded Fabian from the Office of Election Registrar. The remedy of Fabian is to file an action of quo warranto in his name against Pablo for usurping the office. (Sec. 5, Rule 66)