April 1968 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > April 1968 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-23885 April 25, 1968 - FIDELINO C. AGAWIN v. QUINTIN CABRERA, ET AL.:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-23885. April 25, 1968.]
FIDELINO C. AGAWIN, Petitioner, v. QUINTIN CABRERA and HON. ARSENIO NANAWA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, Branch IV, Respondents.
W. Rancap Lagumbay and Ramon Tuangco for Petitioner.
Enrique C. Villanueva for Respondents.
SYLLABUS
1. ELECTION LAW; EXPIRATION OF CONTESTED TERM OF OFFICE RENDERS CASE ACADEMIC. — Since the contested term of the office of mayoralty has expired, any decision now regarding the protest and counter-protest of the candidates thereof can no longer be given any practical effect.
R E S O L U T I O N
SANCHEZ, J.:
Contestants for the mayoralty post of Pagsanjan, Laguna, in the November 12, 1963 elections were Fidelino C. Agawin, the Nacionalista Party candidate and Quintin Cabrera for the Liberal Party. Cabrera was proclaimed winner on November 14, 1963. Agawin protested. 1 His grounds: frauds, corrupt practices, overspending, vote-buying and other illegal election practices which he described in said protest. Cabrera answered and asserted a counter-protest.
Upon respondent judge’s order, a revision of ballots was made and completed. Thereafter, Cabrera moved for the dismissal of the protest alleging that it was filed beyond the reglementary period and that protestant’s certificate of candidacy was filed in the wrong office, 2 a jurisdictional defect which was not cured by the amended protest as the latter was lodged beyond the two-week reglementary period for filing an election protest.
On July 11, 1964, respondent judge ruled that protestant’s certificate of candidacy was filed with the wrong body, dismissed the protest with costs against protestant.
Reconsideration failed of its purpose.
Claiming grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the dismissal order, protestant Agawin came to this Court on certiorari.
In the recent elections of November, 1967, petitioner and respondent Cabrera again faced each other for the same position. Cabrera won; Agawin again protested.
Since the contested term of office in the case at bar (1964-1967) has expired, any decision now can no longer be given any practical effect. 3
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby dismissed. No costs. SO ORDERED.
Reyes, J.B.L., (Acting C.J.), Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.
Upon respondent judge’s order, a revision of ballots was made and completed. Thereafter, Cabrera moved for the dismissal of the protest alleging that it was filed beyond the reglementary period and that protestant’s certificate of candidacy was filed in the wrong office, 2 a jurisdictional defect which was not cured by the amended protest as the latter was lodged beyond the two-week reglementary period for filing an election protest.
On July 11, 1964, respondent judge ruled that protestant’s certificate of candidacy was filed with the wrong body, dismissed the protest with costs against protestant.
Reconsideration failed of its purpose.
Claiming grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the dismissal order, protestant Agawin came to this Court on certiorari.
In the recent elections of November, 1967, petitioner and respondent Cabrera again faced each other for the same position. Cabrera won; Agawin again protested.
Since the contested term of office in the case at bar (1964-1967) has expired, any decision now can no longer be given any practical effect. 3
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby dismissed. No costs. SO ORDERED.
Reyes, J.B.L., (Acting C.J.), Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Election Case No. SC-470, Court of First Instance of Laguna, Branch IV, entitled "Fidelino C. Agawin, Protestant, v. Quintin Cabrera, Protestee." The protest was amended on December 9, 1963.
2. Protestant filed his certificate of candidacy with the Commission on Election instead of filing it with the municipal secretary as directed by Sec. 36, par. (c) of the Revised Election Code.
3. See: Gonzaga v. Bico, L-20291, February 27, 1965; Tuanda v. Dionaldo (1966), 17 Supreme Court Reports 646 (Resolution).
