August 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > August 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. Nos. 177216-17 : August 25, 2009] WILFREDO L. TABAG VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE NEW MUNICIPAL BOARD OE CANVASSERS AND RAYMUNDO P. ESPIDOL:
[G.R. Nos. 177216-17 : August 25, 2009]
WILFREDO L. TABAG VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE NEW MUNICIPAL BOARD OE CANVASSERS AND RAYMUNDO P. ESPIDOL
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated August 25, 2009
"G.R. Nos. 177216-17 - WILFREDO L. TABAG versus COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE NEW MUNICIPAL BOARD OE CANVASSERS and RAYMUNDO P. ESPIDOL
Petitioner Wilfredo Tabag and private respondent Raymundo Espidol vied for the position of Municipal Mayor of Ramon, Isabela during the May 10, 2004 elections. On May 16, 2004, the Municipal Board of Canvassers[1] (MBC) proclaimed private respondent, with a winning margin[2] of 2,012 votes, as the elected Mayor.
Upon petition docketed as SPC No. 04-180, public respondent Commission on Elections (Comelec), by Resolution of August 30, 2004,[3] declared private respondent's proclamation null and void, reconstituted a new MBC to re-canvass the election returns, and directed the Vice-Mayor Elect to temporarily assume the mayoralty post pendente lite, which Resolution this Court affirmed in G.R. No. 164922[4] by Decision of October 11,2005. Pursuant thereto, the Comelec issued a Writ of Execution on December 1, 2005.
The new MBC[5] convened on July 10, 2006 and ended the re-canvassing on July 13, 2006. Out of the 117 election returns, petitioner objected to the inclusion of 17 while private respondent objected to 42, one of which was immediately set aside as it glaringly contained the wrong names of the barangay, election inspectors, and candidates' watchers.
By separate rulings issued on July 14, 2006, the new MBC denied petitioner's objections (i.e., erasures without initials, different ink color, absence of BEI signatures, smudged thumb prints) since they were not bona fide grounds for a pre-proclamation controversy, as well as private respondent's objections (i.e., different paper size, color, texture of page/s of the returns; and discrepancy of entries when compared with other authentic copies of the election returns) for non-compliance with the prescribed form. In spite of both parties' manifestations of their intention to appeal, the new MBC on even date proclaimed petitioner as the winning candidate after including the contested election returns in the final tally of votes, which showed a margin[6] of 1,312 votes.
On July 15, 2006 or within the 48-hour prescribed period, private respondent filed with the new MBC a written and verified notice of appeal, followed by his filing on July 20, 2006 of an Appeal-Memorandum before the Comelec, docketed as SPC No. 06-002. He also filed on July 22, 2006 a petition docketed as SPC No. 06-003 to annul petitioner's proclamation. The two cases were consolidated by Order of September 20, 2006.
After several hearings including a random examination/comparison of available copies[7] of the disputed election returns, the Comelec, by Resolution[8] of January 31, 2007, reversed the new MBC's July 14, 2006 ruling which denied the exclusion of 41 election returns, annulled the new MBC's canvassing, nullified the proclamation of petitioner, and constituted a new (third) MBC[9] with a directive to convene and re-canvass the 41 election returns using the Comelec's Copy (Copy 2) at the Comelec's main office within five days from notice. The Comelec, by the assailed Resolution[10] of April 12, 2007, denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Hence, the present petition which imputes grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Comelec for, in sum, taking cognizance of the lapsed appeal, finding substantial compliance with the rule of filing objections in the prescribed form, and ruling on the spunousness and falsity of the election returns.
Private respondent submitted a Comment[11] of June 14, 2007 while the Comelec, through the Office of the Solicitor General, tiled a Comment[12] of February 4, 2009. Petitioner's counsel requested dispensation from the filing of a Reply.[13]
Records show that the result of the third MBC's re-canvassing showed private respondent as the duly elected Mayor. In fact, he took his oath of office on April 19, 2007[14] or less than three months away from the end of the term of office.
In view of the expiration of the term of office of the contested mayoralty position on June 30, 2007, this case has become moot.
En passant, as the Court writes finis to the case, it notes the glaring procedural defects attending the petition, the factual antecedents of which, as reflected above, show that the election returns were canvassed not just once but thrice.
A perusal of the petition shows that only the Comelec's April 12, 2007 Resolution was attached to it. Petitioner failed to attach material portions of the record and relevant and pertinent documents in support of the petition such as the new MBC's Rulings of July 14, 2006 and the Comelec's January 31, 2007 Resolution, the factual disquisition in which was affirmed by the Comelec in its April 12, 2007 Resolution. The petition thus violates Section 5 of Rule 64 in relation to Section 1 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
It bears reiteration that this requirement is not a mere technicality but an essential requisite for the determination of prima facie basis for giving due course to the petition. As a rule, a petition which lacks copies of essential pleadings and portions of the case record may be dismissed. Much discretion is left to the reviewing court, however, to determine the necessity for such copies, as the exact nature of the pleadings and portions of the record which must accompany a petition is not specified.[15]
Since the Court wanted to be apprised of such material pleadings and pertinent documents, which should have been submitted with the petition at the first instance, the Court suspended denying or giving due course to the petition until the filing of comments which, as underscored above, did not prevent the petition from becoming moot.
Moreover, petitioner failed to aver specific material dates showing that the petition was filed within the prescriptive period. While petitioner alleges that he received a copy of the Comelec Resolution of April 12, 2007 on even date, he failed to indicate the date of receipt of the Comelec Resolution of January 31, 2007 and the date of filing of his Motion for Reconsideration therefrom. The petition thus violates Section 5 of Rule 64 in relation to Sections 6 of Rule 65 with reference to Section 2 of Rule 56 and Section 3 of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court.
It is settled that the following material dates must be stated in a petition for certiorari brought under Rule 65: first, the date when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution was received; second, the date when a motion for new trial or for reconsideration was filed; and third, the date when notice of the denial thereof was received.[16]
On top of the procedural defects which hitherto already provide a sufficient ground for its dismissal, the petition is forever muted for being moot.
On the mootness of the present petition, Baldo Jr., v. Comelec[17] explains why the Court is left with no other recourse than to dismiss a petition on the ground of mootness.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED."
"G.R. Nos. 177216-17 - WILFREDO L. TABAG versus COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE NEW MUNICIPAL BOARD OE CANVASSERS and RAYMUNDO P. ESPIDOL
Petitioner Wilfredo Tabag and private respondent Raymundo Espidol vied for the position of Municipal Mayor of Ramon, Isabela during the May 10, 2004 elections. On May 16, 2004, the Municipal Board of Canvassers[1] (MBC) proclaimed private respondent, with a winning margin[2] of 2,012 votes, as the elected Mayor.
Upon petition docketed as SPC No. 04-180, public respondent Commission on Elections (Comelec), by Resolution of August 30, 2004,[3] declared private respondent's proclamation null and void, reconstituted a new MBC to re-canvass the election returns, and directed the Vice-Mayor Elect to temporarily assume the mayoralty post pendente lite, which Resolution this Court affirmed in G.R. No. 164922[4] by Decision of October 11,2005. Pursuant thereto, the Comelec issued a Writ of Execution on December 1, 2005.
The new MBC[5] convened on July 10, 2006 and ended the re-canvassing on July 13, 2006. Out of the 117 election returns, petitioner objected to the inclusion of 17 while private respondent objected to 42, one of which was immediately set aside as it glaringly contained the wrong names of the barangay, election inspectors, and candidates' watchers.
By separate rulings issued on July 14, 2006, the new MBC denied petitioner's objections (i.e., erasures without initials, different ink color, absence of BEI signatures, smudged thumb prints) since they were not bona fide grounds for a pre-proclamation controversy, as well as private respondent's objections (i.e., different paper size, color, texture of page/s of the returns; and discrepancy of entries when compared with other authentic copies of the election returns) for non-compliance with the prescribed form. In spite of both parties' manifestations of their intention to appeal, the new MBC on even date proclaimed petitioner as the winning candidate after including the contested election returns in the final tally of votes, which showed a margin[6] of 1,312 votes.
On July 15, 2006 or within the 48-hour prescribed period, private respondent filed with the new MBC a written and verified notice of appeal, followed by his filing on July 20, 2006 of an Appeal-Memorandum before the Comelec, docketed as SPC No. 06-002. He also filed on July 22, 2006 a petition docketed as SPC No. 06-003 to annul petitioner's proclamation. The two cases were consolidated by Order of September 20, 2006.
After several hearings including a random examination/comparison of available copies[7] of the disputed election returns, the Comelec, by Resolution[8] of January 31, 2007, reversed the new MBC's July 14, 2006 ruling which denied the exclusion of 41 election returns, annulled the new MBC's canvassing, nullified the proclamation of petitioner, and constituted a new (third) MBC[9] with a directive to convene and re-canvass the 41 election returns using the Comelec's Copy (Copy 2) at the Comelec's main office within five days from notice. The Comelec, by the assailed Resolution[10] of April 12, 2007, denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Hence, the present petition which imputes grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Comelec for, in sum, taking cognizance of the lapsed appeal, finding substantial compliance with the rule of filing objections in the prescribed form, and ruling on the spunousness and falsity of the election returns.
Private respondent submitted a Comment[11] of June 14, 2007 while the Comelec, through the Office of the Solicitor General, tiled a Comment[12] of February 4, 2009. Petitioner's counsel requested dispensation from the filing of a Reply.[13]
Records show that the result of the third MBC's re-canvassing showed private respondent as the duly elected Mayor. In fact, he took his oath of office on April 19, 2007[14] or less than three months away from the end of the term of office.
In view of the expiration of the term of office of the contested mayoralty position on June 30, 2007, this case has become moot.
En passant, as the Court writes finis to the case, it notes the glaring procedural defects attending the petition, the factual antecedents of which, as reflected above, show that the election returns were canvassed not just once but thrice.
A perusal of the petition shows that only the Comelec's April 12, 2007 Resolution was attached to it. Petitioner failed to attach material portions of the record and relevant and pertinent documents in support of the petition such as the new MBC's Rulings of July 14, 2006 and the Comelec's January 31, 2007 Resolution, the factual disquisition in which was affirmed by the Comelec in its April 12, 2007 Resolution. The petition thus violates Section 5 of Rule 64 in relation to Section 1 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
It bears reiteration that this requirement is not a mere technicality but an essential requisite for the determination of prima facie basis for giving due course to the petition. As a rule, a petition which lacks copies of essential pleadings and portions of the case record may be dismissed. Much discretion is left to the reviewing court, however, to determine the necessity for such copies, as the exact nature of the pleadings and portions of the record which must accompany a petition is not specified.[15]
Since the Court wanted to be apprised of such material pleadings and pertinent documents, which should have been submitted with the petition at the first instance, the Court suspended denying or giving due course to the petition until the filing of comments which, as underscored above, did not prevent the petition from becoming moot.
Moreover, petitioner failed to aver specific material dates showing that the petition was filed within the prescriptive period. While petitioner alleges that he received a copy of the Comelec Resolution of April 12, 2007 on even date, he failed to indicate the date of receipt of the Comelec Resolution of January 31, 2007 and the date of filing of his Motion for Reconsideration therefrom. The petition thus violates Section 5 of Rule 64 in relation to Sections 6 of Rule 65 with reference to Section 2 of Rule 56 and Section 3 of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court.
It is settled that the following material dates must be stated in a petition for certiorari brought under Rule 65: first, the date when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution was received; second, the date when a motion for new trial or for reconsideration was filed; and third, the date when notice of the denial thereof was received.[16]
On top of the procedural defects which hitherto already provide a sufficient ground for its dismissal, the petition is forever muted for being moot.
On the mootness of the present petition, Baldo Jr., v. Comelec[17] explains why the Court is left with no other recourse than to dismiss a petition on the ground of mootness.
In Malaluan v. COMELEC, this Court pronounced that the expiration of the challenged term of office renders the corresponding petition moot, to wit:It is significant to note that the term of office of the local officials elected in the May 1992 elections expired on June 30, 1995. This petition, thus, has become moot and academic insofar as it concerns petitioner's right to the mayoralty seat in his municipality because expiration of the term of office contested in the election protest has the effect of rendering the same moot and academic.
When the appeal from a decision in an election case has already become moot, the case being an election protest involving the office of [the] mayor the term of which had expired, the appeal is dismissible on that ground, unless the rendering of a decision on the merits would be of practical value. This Rile we established in the case of Yorac v. Magalona which we dismissed because it had been mooted by the expiration of the term of office of the Municipal Mayor of Saravia, Negros Occidental x x x. (Underscoring ours.) (Citation omitted.)
A case becomes moot when there is no more actual controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits. Courts will not determine a moot question in a case in which no practical relief can be granted. It is unnecessary to indulge in academic discussion of a case presenting a moot question, as a judgment thereon cannot have any practical legal effect or, in the nature of things, cannot be enforced.
In Garcia v. COMELEC, this Court held that where the issues have become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, thereby rendering the resolution of the same of no practical use or value.
Similarly, in Gancho-on v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, the Court ruled that:It is a rule of universal application, almost, that courts of justice constituted to pass upon substantial rights will not consider questions in which no actual interests are involved; they decline jurisdiction of moot cases. And where the issue has become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. There is no actual substantial relief to which petitioners would be entitled and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition.[18] (Emphasis and underscoring in the original)
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED."
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. V1LLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. V1LLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Consisting of Chairperson Arty. Agripino de Guzman, Vice-Chairperson Pedro Gucco, and Member-Secretary Rosalinda Doroni.
[2] Respondent received 8,647 votes, while petitioner garnered 6,635.
[3] Affirming the July 16, 2004 Resolution of the Comelec Second Division.
[4] Espidol v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 164922, October 11, 2005, 472 SCRA 380. The Court affirmed the Comelec's findings of irregularities in the MBC proceedings (i.e., absence of rulings on the inclusion and exclusion of the disputed returns, discrepancy in the number of votes cast) which was also vitiated with threats and intimidation.
[5] Atty. Jerbee Anthony Cortez, election officer of Santiago City, as chairperson, with Atty. Manuel Castillo, election officer of Echague, Isabela, as vice-chairperson, and Arnold Vallejo, election officer of Ramon, Isabela, as member.
[6] Petitioner had 8,228 votes as against respondent's 6,916 votes.
[7] Copies of the dominant party, Comelec, Namfrel and MBC.
[8] Rollo,pp. 262-285.
[9] Appointing Comelec lawyers Ma. Elizabeth Sarmiento as chairperson, Belen Salespara-Carasig as vice-chairperson, and Rafael Ola�o as secretary.
[10] Rollo, pp. 34-44. The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads:
In view of the foregoing, the Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES to DENY the instant motion.
A new canvassing is hereby scheduled at the Session Hall of the Commission on Elections Main Office in Intramuros, Manila, using the Copy 2 of the forty-one (41) contested election returns under the custody of the Election Records and Statistic Division.
Accordingly, the members of the New Municipal Board of Canvassers, composed of Atty. Ma. Elizabeth Sarmiento, Atty. Belen Salespara-Carasig and Atty. Rafael Ola�o, are hereby directed to meet and commence the re-canvassing of the 41 election returns within five (5) days from notice to the parties and to proclaim the winning candidate. This resolution shall be considered as Notice to the contending parties of the schedule and venue of the re-canvassing of the forty-one (41) contested election returns.
SO ORDERED.
[11] Id. at 89-120.
[12] Id. at 376-393.
[13] Id. at 402-403.
[14] Id. at 344-345.
[15] Esguerra v. Trinidad, G.R. No. 169890, March 12,2007,518 SCRA 186,193-194
[16] Davao Contractors Development Cooperative v. Pasawa, G.R. No. 172174, July 9, 2009.
[17] G.R. No. 176135, June 16, 2009.
[18] Id.
