DAVAO CITY, Philippines — The Regional Trial Court (RTC) has ruled in favor of Leo Magno, recognizing his appointment as the legal Chairperson of the Mindanao Development Authority (MinDA) and dismissing the claim of ousted chair Maria Belen Sunga Acosta.
“Undoubtedly, this petition must be dismissed not only on the ground that it is an improper remedy as it is not anchored on the respondent’s qualification but more so on the premise that it is a challenge against an act of the President who is immune from suit, even without him invoking the privilege,” cited the two-page decision rendered by RTC Branch 15 presiding judge Mario C. Duaves on May 27, 2024.
Newsline Philippines secured a copy of the decision after submitting a formal request, which the court favored.
Acosta had filed a quo warranto case against Magno, docketed as Special Civil Action R-DVO-24-02664, which was heard by Judge Duaves. In her petition, Acosta sought to restrain Magno from entering the MinDA office and prayed for the issuance of a “Status quo ante” order to prevent Magno from interfering, disturbing, or disrupting her from performing her duties for the remainder of her term.
Acosta invoked Republic Act No. 9996, or the Mindanao Development Authority Act of 2010. Section 3 of the Act states that MinDA “shall promote, coordinate and facilitate the active and extensive participation of all sectors to effect the socioeconomic development of Mindanao.” Section 7 of the Act states that the Chairperson “shall serve a term of six (6) years from the date of his/her appointment, unless removed for cause.”
Judge Duaves also cited the case of Esmero vs. Duterte (G.R. No. 256288, June 29, 2021), where the Supreme Court en banc dismissed the petition “For utter lack of merit.”
“Our ruling in De Lima v. Duterte is clear: the President is immune from suit during his incumbency, regardless of the nature of the suit filed against him. Petitioner named President Duterte as the sole respondent in this case. For this reason, this suit should be dismissed outright,” the decision added.
“Even if, for the sake of argument, the Court was inclined to overlook this fatal flaw and consider the case filed against the Executive Secretary as the representative of the President, if only to save the petition from perfunctory dismissal, a writ of mandamus would still not lie in petitioner’s favor,” the decision continued.
A quo warranto case is a legal proceeding during which an individual’s right to hold an office or governmental privilege is challenged. The term “quo warranto” is Latin for “by what authority” and the case typically questions the legality of a person’s claim to a public office or authority.-Editha Z. Caduaya
 has ruled in favor of Leo Magno, recognizing his appointment as the legal Chairperson of the MinDA){kind=link}