April 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 191583 : April 17, 2012]
ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST AND SAMSON S. ALCANTARA, NOEL T. TIAMPONG, PEDRO T. DABU, JR., RODOLFO MAPILE, ROMEO R. ROBISO, AND LOPE E. FEBLE v. JONATHAN A. DELA CRUZ AND SPEAKER PROSPERO C. NOGRALES.
"G.R. No. 191583 - ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST AND SAMSON S. ALCANTARA, NOEL T. TIAMPONG, PEDRO T. DABU, JR., RODOLFO MAPILE, ROMEO R. ROBISO, AND LOPE E. FEBLE v. JONATHAN A. DELA CRUZ AND SPEAKER PROSPERO C. NOGRALES
RESOLUTION
Following the May 14, 2007 elections, petitioners, through this petition for Quo Warranto[1] with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction, seek among others, that the Court render judgment "ousting and altogether excluding" respondent Jonathan Dela Cruz (Dela Cruz) as nominee-representative of the ABAKADA GURO Party-List (ABAKADA) and declaring, in his stead, petitioner Samson S. Alcantara (Alcantara). The petitioners also seek that all books, papers, salaries, emoluments, and privileges received by Dela Cruz as nominee-representative of ABAKADA be ordered delivered to Alcantara.
On April 6, 2010, the Court issued a resolution requiring the respondents to file their respective comments on the petition and on the prayer for a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction. On May 28, 2010, Dela Cruz filed his Comment/Opposition.[2]
On June 22, 2010, the Court resolved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. On July 8, 2010, Speaker Nograles filed his comment.[3]
On July 20, 2010, the Court required petitioners to file their reply.[4]
On August 24, 2010, the Court issued the following resolution:
G.R. No. 191583 (ABAKADA Guro Party-List, et al. v. Jonathan A. [dela] Cruz, et al.). - In view of the resolution of the July 20, 2010, noting the comment on the petition filed by respondent Speaker Prospero C. Nograles and requiring petitioners to file a reply to the said comment, the Court Resolved to:
(a) SET ASIDE the resolution of June 22, 2010, dismissing the instant petition for lack of jurisdiction;
(b) REINSTATE the petition; and
(c) REQUIRE the petitioners to likewise file a REPLY to the Comment/Opposition (on the petition) dated May 24, 2010, filed by counsel for respondent Jonathan dela Cruz, within ten (10) days from notice hereof.
Unaware of the above resolution, the petitioners sought reconsideration[5] of the Court's June 22, 2010 Resolution. On October 5, 2010, the Court denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
On November 2, 2010, after seeking several extensions,[6] the petitioners filed their Consolidated Reply in compliance with the August 24, 2010 Resolution of the Court.
Through their Manifestation and Motion dated November 17, 2010, the petitioners prayed that the Court recall its October 5, 2010 Resolution denying their petition with finality, in view of its August 24, 2010 resolution reinstating the petition and requiring them to file their reply to the Comment/Opposition of Dela Cruz.
Rather than prolong the disposition of this case any further, the Court notes the mootness of the petition and, accordingly, dismisses the same.
The Court is not unmindful that the term of office being contested between the parties ended at noon of June 30, 2010. The Court thus has no alternative except to dismiss the petition accord with jurisprudence, to the effect that the expiration of the contested term of office renders the petition moot and academic. A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical value. As a rule, courts decline jurisdiction over such a case, or dismiss it on ground of mootness.[7]
In Malaluan v. COMELEC[8] reiterated more recently in the case of Sales v. COMELEC[9] and Baldo, Jr. v. COMELEC,[10] this Court clearly pronounced that the expiration of the challenged term of office renders the corresponding petition moot and academic, 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 rule 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.)
Indeed, an academic discussion of a case presenting a moot question is not necessary, because a judgment on the case cannot have any practical legal effect or, in the nature of things, cannot be enforced. Stated otherwise, this Court will not determine a moot question in a case in which no practical relief can be granted.[11]cralaw
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court DISMISSES the petition for quo warranto for being MOOT and ACADEMIC."
Very truly yours,
ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) FELIPA B. ANAMA
Deputy Clerk of Court En Banc
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-73.[2] Id. at 77-91.
[3] Id. at 97-151.
[4] Id. at 153.
[5] Id. at 185-187, 189-191.
[6] Id. at 74-75.
[7] Gunsi v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 168792, February 23, 2009, 580 SCRA 70, 76.
[8] 324 Phil. 676, 683 (1996)
[9] G.R. No. 174668, September 12, 2007.
[10] G.R. No. 176135, June 16, 2009.
[11] Villarico v. Court of Appeals, 424 Phil. 26, 33-34 (2002).
