January 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 189631 : January 31, 2012]
EPHRAIM OLIDO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND SATURNINO GUANGA
"G.R. No. 189631 - (Ephraim Olido v. Commission on Elections and Saturnino Guanga)
RESOLUTION
By this petition for review on certiorari, the petitioner seeks the reversal of the Resolution dated September 8, 2009 issued by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc in SPC No. 08-015 (Brgy.),[1] which, in effect, affirmed the Resolution dated September 10, 2008 of the Special Second Division, COMELEC,[2] directing the Barangay Board of Canvassers (BBOC) to reconvene to annul the proclamation of the petitioner and to proclaim Susan San Mateo and respondent Saturnino Guanga (Guanga) as the duly elected 6th and 7th Barangay Kagawad, respectively, during the October 29, 2007 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) Elections.
The petitioner and Guanga were among several candidates for the position of Barangay Kagawad of Barangay Highway Hills, Mandaluyong City, during the October 29, 2007 Barangay and SK Elections. After the canvassing of votes, the BBOC proclaimed the petitioner as the 6th Barangay Kagawad with 1,044 votes, and Guanga as the 8th with only 1,003 votes. Thereafter, Guanga filed a petition for correction of manifest error with the COMELEC, stating that the votes cast had been erroneously tabulated by the BBOC, i.e., the petitioner was wrongly credited with 306 votes in Statement of Votes (SOV) No. 147507, instead of only 246 votes. In a Resolution promulgated on September 10, 2008, the Special Second Division of the COMELEC granted the petition for correction after it found that a clerical error was committed by the BBOC that called for the annulment of the proclamation of the petitioner. On September 8, 2009, the COMELEC En Banc denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the earlier resolution.
Hence, this petition.[3]
In the meantime, the regular Barangay and SK Elections were held on October 25, 2010, and the winners were proclaimed. They assumed office. In light of this development, the Court dismisses the Petition due to the expiration of the term of office being contested.
In Malaluan v. Commission on Election,[4] the Court pronounced that the expiration of the challenged term of office renders the petition moot and academic, viz:
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 around, 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. [Emphasis supplied.]
Indeed, the expiration of the term of the contested position subject of the petition eliminated any practical or useful purpose for passing on the merits of the petition. Dismissal of the petition should follow, because courts will not determine a moot question in a case in which no practical relief can be granted.[5] It is unnecessary to indulge in academic discussion of a case presenting a moot question,[6] for a judgment thereon cannot have any practical legal effect or, in the nature of things, cannot be enforced.[7] We also observed in Gancho-on v. Secretary of Labor and Employment,[8]:
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.cralaw
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Petition is DISMISSED for being MOOT and ACADEMIC."
Abad and Sereno, JJ., on leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Annex "A" of the Petition; rollo, pp. 18-24.[2] Annex "C� of the Petition; id. 26-29.
[3] Id. 3-17.
[4] G.R. No. 120193, March 6, 1996, 254 SCRA 397, 403-404.
[5] Villarico v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132115, January 4, 2002, 373 SCRA 23, 29.
[6] Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 96663, August 10, 1999, 312 SCRA 104, 114.
[7] Lanuza, Jr. v. Yuchengco, G.R. No. 157033, March 28, 2005, 454 SCRA 130, 138.
[8] G.R. No. 108033, April 14, 1997, 271 SCRA 204, 207-208.