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.