June 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > June 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. NO. 152491 : June 03, 2009] TERESITA ROMERO GEMENTIZA V. HON. ROGELIO R. NARISMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BRANCH 23, KIDAPAWAN CITY, AND ANGELITA P. PELONIO, MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF MAGPET, COTABATO :
[G.R. NO. 152491 : June 03, 2009]
TERESITA ROMERO GEMENTIZA V. HON. ROGELIO R. NARISMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BRANCH 23, KIDAPAWAN CITY, AND ANGELITA P. PELONIO, MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF MAGPET, COTABATO
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First division of this Court dated 03 June 2009
G.R. NO. 152491 - TERESITA ROMERO GEMENTIZA v. HON. ROGELIO R. NARISMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BRANCH 23, KIDAPAWAN CITY, AND ANGELITA P. PELONIO, MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF MAGPET, COTABATO
For resolution is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the Order[1] dated August 6, 2001 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kidapawan City, Branch 23, in Civil Case No. 02-2001 dismissing the petition filed by petitioner against private respondent Angelita P. Pelonio.
During the May 14, 2001 local election, private respondent Angelita Pelonio ran for mayor of Magpet, Cotabato. On May 18, 2001, she was proclaimed the elected winner. Eleven days after, or on May 29, 2001, petitioner Teresita R. Gementiza, a registered voter of Magpet, Cotabato, filed with the RTC a petition for quo warranto, docketed as Civil Case No. 02-2001. Petitioner alleged that private respondent Pelonio is ineligible to hold the position of mayor on the ground of feeble-mindedness pursuant to Section 40 (g) of the Local Government Code of 1991.
On July 25, 2001, private respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the following grounds: (a) petitioner failed to file the petition for quo warranto within the ten (10)-day period after the private respondent's proclamation, as prescribed by Section 3, Rule 36 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure; and (b) petitioner failed to pay the filing fee of Three Hundred Pesos (P300.00) as mandated by the Comelec Rules of Procedure.
On August 6, 2001, the RTC issued an Order[2] dismissing the petition tor quo warranto on the ground of lack of jurisdiction for nonpayment of the tiling fee of P300.000 pursuant to Section 9, Rule 35 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated August 6, 2001. On September 10, 2001, the RTC issued an Order[3] denying the motion for reconsideration.
Hence, the present petition ascribing the lone issue of whether or not the public respondent gravely abused his discretion when he dismissed the petition for quo warranto.
Petitioner mainly argues that public respondent's issuance of the questioned Orders is contrary to the basic principle of substantive justice which prejudiced-her rights. In support of her argument, petitioner stresses that there is nothing on the record that she evaded the payment of the docket or filing fees. She mentions that Clerk of Court Atty. Jocelyn Caballero even testified that she has paid in full the docket/filing fee and other fees based on the assessment she made. Public respondent, as a matter of fact, has already taken jurisdiction over the case and petitioner has already presented four (4) witnesses. Hence, if, indeed, she has not paid the proper filing fee, she should be given the opportunity to rectify her procedural lapse.
We note that private respondent's term as Mayor under the 2001 elections expired in 2004. Hence, we find the issues related thereto moot and academic by expiration of the term of office challenged and, accordingly, DISMISS the petition lodged in connection therewith.
In Malaluan v. Commission on Elections,[4] this Court clearly pronounced that expiration of the challenged term of office renders the corresponding petition moot and academic. Thus:
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 (Yorac v. Magalona, supra): There is no compelling reason to depart from this general rule.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED,
WITNESS the Honorable Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Chairperson, Honorable Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Working Chairperson, Honorable Justices Renato C. Corona, Teresita Leonardo de Castro and Lucas P. Bersamin, Members, First Division, this 3rd day of June 2009.
G.R. NO. 152491 - TERESITA ROMERO GEMENTIZA v. HON. ROGELIO R. NARISMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BRANCH 23, KIDAPAWAN CITY, AND ANGELITA P. PELONIO, MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF MAGPET, COTABATO
For resolution is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the Order[1] dated August 6, 2001 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kidapawan City, Branch 23, in Civil Case No. 02-2001 dismissing the petition filed by petitioner against private respondent Angelita P. Pelonio.
During the May 14, 2001 local election, private respondent Angelita Pelonio ran for mayor of Magpet, Cotabato. On May 18, 2001, she was proclaimed the elected winner. Eleven days after, or on May 29, 2001, petitioner Teresita R. Gementiza, a registered voter of Magpet, Cotabato, filed with the RTC a petition for quo warranto, docketed as Civil Case No. 02-2001. Petitioner alleged that private respondent Pelonio is ineligible to hold the position of mayor on the ground of feeble-mindedness pursuant to Section 40 (g) of the Local Government Code of 1991.
On July 25, 2001, private respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the following grounds: (a) petitioner failed to file the petition for quo warranto within the ten (10)-day period after the private respondent's proclamation, as prescribed by Section 3, Rule 36 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure; and (b) petitioner failed to pay the filing fee of Three Hundred Pesos (P300.00) as mandated by the Comelec Rules of Procedure.
On August 6, 2001, the RTC issued an Order[2] dismissing the petition tor quo warranto on the ground of lack of jurisdiction for nonpayment of the tiling fee of P300.000 pursuant to Section 9, Rule 35 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated August 6, 2001. On September 10, 2001, the RTC issued an Order[3] denying the motion for reconsideration.
Hence, the present petition ascribing the lone issue of whether or not the public respondent gravely abused his discretion when he dismissed the petition for quo warranto.
Petitioner mainly argues that public respondent's issuance of the questioned Orders is contrary to the basic principle of substantive justice which prejudiced-her rights. In support of her argument, petitioner stresses that there is nothing on the record that she evaded the payment of the docket or filing fees. She mentions that Clerk of Court Atty. Jocelyn Caballero even testified that she has paid in full the docket/filing fee and other fees based on the assessment she made. Public respondent, as a matter of fact, has already taken jurisdiction over the case and petitioner has already presented four (4) witnesses. Hence, if, indeed, she has not paid the proper filing fee, she should be given the opportunity to rectify her procedural lapse.
We note that private respondent's term as Mayor under the 2001 elections expired in 2004. Hence, we find the issues related thereto moot and academic by expiration of the term of office challenged and, accordingly, DISMISS the petition lodged in connection therewith.
In Malaluan v. Commission on Elections,[4] this Court clearly pronounced that expiration of the challenged term of office renders the corresponding petition moot and academic. Thus:
"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 (Amatong v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 71003, April 28, 1988, En Banc, Minute Resolution; Artano v. Arcillas, G.R. No. 76823, April 265 1988, En Banc, Minute Resolution) because expiration of the term of office contested in the election protest has the effect of rendering the same moot and academic (Atienza v. Commission on Elections, 239 SCRA 298; Abeja v. Tanada, 236 SCRA 60; Yorac v. Magalona, 3 SCRA 76).
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 (Yorac v. Magalona, supra): There is no compelling reason to depart from this general rule.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED,
WITNESS the Honorable Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Chairperson, Honorable Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Working Chairperson, Honorable Justices Renato C. Corona, Teresita Leonardo de Castro and Lucas P. Bersamin, Members, First Division, this 3rd day of June 2009.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by Judge Rogelio R. Narisma.
[2] Rollo, pp. 14-17.
[3] Id. at 48-51.
[4] G.R. Mo, 120193, March 6, 1996, 254 SCRA 397.
