LIBAN v.

GORDON
G.R. No. 173532|593 SCRA 68 July 15, 2009 J. Carpio Pagda
petitioner Dante Liban, Reynaldo Bernardo, Salvador Viari
respondent Richard Gordon
s
summary Petitioners filed a petition before the Supreme Court to declare Gordon to have forfeited
his Senate seat upon accepting his election as Chair of the Red Cross Board of Governors.

Court denied the petition. First of all, they did not have standing; this petition was a quo
warranto petition, and they did not fall under those individuals who may file such petition.
Second, the PNRC is considered a private organization and NOT a GOCC. The President
does not even appoint the Chairman of such organization. Thus, Article VI, Sec. 13 of the
Constitution, prohibiting members of Congress from holding any other office within the
Government without forfeiting his seat does not apply in Gordons case.

1
facts of the case
The Parties
Petitioners are officers of the board of Directors of the QC Chapter of the Philippine National Red Cross
(PNRC). Respondent Gordon is the Chairman of the PNRC Board of Governors.

The Source of the Dispute

During the Feb 23, 2006 meeting of the PNRC Board of Governors, Gordon was elected Chairman of the
PNRC. At the time of his election, he was also a SENATOR of the Philippines, having been elected into office
on May 2004.

The Petition
Petitioners filed with the SC this petition to declare Gordon as having forfeited his seat in the Senate.

The Arguments
Petitioners:
By accepting chairmanship of PNRC Board of Governors, Gordon has ceased to be a member of the Philippine
Senate as provided under Sec. 13, Art. VI, of the Constitution 1.
-
To bolster their argument, petitioners cited Camporedondo vs NLRC, where it was supposedly held
that the PNRC is a GOCC. Thus, pursuant to the ruling in Flores vs Drilon, which held that incumbent
national legislators lose their elective posts upon appointment to another government office, Gordon
automatically forfeited his seat in the Senate upon his acceptance of the chairmanship.

Gordon:
-
Respondents have no standing. This petition appears to be an action for quo warranto, and under such
petition, only a person claiming to be entitled to a public office usurped or unlawfully held by another
may bring an action for quo warranto in his own name.
-
If it is a petition for quo warranto, the period for filing it has also prescribed. Under the law, the
petition should be filed within one year from after the cause of the public officers forfeiture of office.
Gordon has been working for the PNRC for 40 years already. He was already Chairman when he
became Senator in 2004, having been elected as chair in 2003 and re-elected in 2005.
-
If the petition is one for declaratory relief, the SC will have no jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction for
declaratory relief petitions are with the RTC.
-
PNRC is not a GOCC. Thus, the prohibition under the Constitution does not apply since volunteer
service in the PNRC is neither an office nor employment.
-

issue
WON the PNRC is a government office or a GOCC for purposes of the prohibition in Sec. 13, Art. VI of the
Constitution. NO.

ratio
Petitioners have NO STANDING.
A reading of the petition shows that it is one for QUO WARRANTO. The pertinent rules for such petition are
found in Rule 66, Sec. 1 of the RoC.
-
Petitioners allege in their petition that by accepting the Chairmanship, Gordon has automatically
forfeited his seat in the Senate. In short, they filed an action for usurpation of public office against
respondent, a public officer who allegedly committed an act which constitutes a ground for the
forfeiture of his public office.
Under the Rules, a petition for quo warranto is generally commenced by the Government as the proper party
plaintiff.
1
SEC. 13. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other office or employment in the Government, or
any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries,
during his term without forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be appointed to any office which may have been created or the
emoluments thereof increased during the term for which he was elected.

2
 -
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, in which case he can bring the
action in his own name. The person instituting quo warranto proceedings in his own behalf must claim
and be able to show that he is entitled to the office in dispute otherwise the action may be dismissed at
any stage.
-
As applied in this case petitioners do not claim to be entitled to the Senate office of respondent.
Thus, they have no standing to file the present petition.
The PNRC is a private organization performing public functions.
The PNRC is a member of the National Society of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent
Movement (The Movement). The Movement has a set of fundamental principles that members must
adhere to. One of these principles is that the PNRC must be AUTONOMOUS.
-
Why autonomous? To be accepted by warring belligerents as neutral workers during international
or internal armed conflicts, PNRC volunteers must not be seen as belonging to any side of the
armed conflict. Here, where there is a communist insurgency and a Muslim separatist rebellion, the
PNRC cannot be seen as government-owned or controlled, and neither can the PNRC volunteers be
identified as government personnel or as instruments of government policy.
-
Thus, to ensure autonomy, neutrality, and independence, the PNRC CANNOT BE CONTROLLED
or OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Is this statement true? YES.
-
The PNRC does not receive any appropriation from the PHL Government. Neither does it have any
government assets. It is financed primarily by contributions from private individuals and
solicitation campaigns organized by its Governors.
-
The PNRC is NOT controlled by the PHL Government. Of the 30 governors, only 6 are appointed
by the President of the PHL. 18 are elected by the chapter delegates, and 6 are elected by the 24
members.
The President does NOT appoint the Chair of the PNRC.
-
The PNRC chair cannot be considered a member of the EXECUTIVE Branch because his
appointment does not fall under Sec. 16, Art. VII of the Constitution (officials which the President
may appoint)
-
(Consti 1 review) Rufino vs Endriga, cited in this case, explained the three types of officials a
President may appoint under said provision (1) Heads of the Executive departments,
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, officers of the armed forces from the rank of
colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in the President by the
Constitution. (2) Those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint. (3) All other
officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided by law.
-
Thus, not being a GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL or EMPLOYEE, the PNRC Chair does NOT hold a
government office or employment.
PNRC is NOT a GOCC.
-
It is privately owned, privately funded, and privately run.
-
Camporedondo vs NLRC failed to consider the definition of a GOCC according to the Admin Code
of 19872.
-
A government-owned or controlled corporation must be owned by the government, and in the case
of a stock corporation, at least a majority of its capital stock must be owned by the government. In
the case of a non-stock corporation, by analogy at least a majority of the members must be
government officials holding such membership by appointment or designation by the
government. Under this criterion, and as discussed earlier, the government does not own or control
PNRC.

2
SEC. 2. General Terms Defined. x x x
(13) Government-owned or controlled corporation refers to any agency organized as a stock or non-stock corporation, vested with
functions relating to public needs whether governmental or proprietary in nature, and owned by the Government directly or through
its instrumentalities either wholly, or where applicable as in the case of stock corporations, to the extent of at least fifty-one (51)
percent of its capital stock:

3
The PNRC Charter is Violative of the Constitutional Proscription against the Creation of Private
Corporations by Special Law
The 1935 Consti was in force when the PNRC was created by special charter on March 22, 1947. Sec. 7,
Art. XIV read
SEC. 7. The Congress shall not, except by general law, provide for the formation, organization, or
regulation of private corporations, unless such corporations are owned or controlled by the
Government or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof.
This provision meant that Congress cannot enact a law creating a private corporation with a special
charter. Such legislation would be unconstitutional. Private corporations may exist only under a
general law; If the corporation is private, it must necessarily exist under a general law. Stated
differently, only corporations created under a general law can qualify as private corporations. Under
existing laws, the general law is the Corporation Code, except that the Cooperative Code governs the
incorporation of cooperatives.
As applied:
Although the PNRC is created by a special charter, it cannot be considered a GOCC in the absence of
the essential elements of ownership and control by the government. In creating the PNRC as a
corporate entity, Congress was in fact creating a private corporation. However, the constitutional
prohibition against the creation of private corporations by special charters provides no exception
even for non-profit or charitable corporations. Consequently, the PNRC Charter, insofar as it creates
the PNRC as a private corporation and grants it corporate powers is void for being unconstitutional.