Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > December 2010 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 193067 : December 07, 2010] JEORGE BOTYONG V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND JOLLY "JOMAC" M. MACASAET:

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated DECEMBER 7, 2010, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 193067 (Jeorge Botyong v. Commission on Elections and Jolly "Jomac" M. Macasaet). - At bar is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Jorge Botyong (Botyong), challenging the July 27, 2010 Order^[1] of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc, which affirmed the June 15, 2010 Resolution^[2] of the COMELEC Second Division.

The facts:

Petitioner Botyong and private respondent Jolly "Jomac" Macasaet (Macasaet) were among the candidates for the position of Punong Barangay of Barangay Nag-iba I, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro, in the October 29, 2007 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections.

Canvassing results showed that Botyong prevailed over Macasaet by a slim margin of two (2) votes. Botyong garnered 146 votes as against the 144 votes obtained by Macasaet. Accordingly, Botyong was proclaimed as the winning candidate.

On November 7, 2007, Macasaet instituted an election protest before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Calapan City. Averring that the Board of Election Tellers (BET) in the three precincts^[3] committed grave errors in the counting of votes and in the appreciation of ballots, he demanded for a recount/revision. He also claimed that the BET should have appreciated in his favor several ballots wherein his name was either miswritten or misplaced on a space other than that intended for the position of Punong Barangay.^[4]

On March 18, 2008, the MTCC rendered a decision^[5] crediting in favor of Macasaet, two (2) ballots reflecting his name on the first line of the space intended for the position of kagawad. The decretal portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, viewed from all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

A. Declaring that the two (2) contested votes be credited in favor of the protestant JOLLY M, MACASAET @ Jomac thus resulting to a tie;

B. SETTING ASIDE the proclamation of the protestee JORGE BOTYONG as the duly elected Punong Barangay of Nagiba 1, Calapan City by the Barangay Board of Canvassers; for being contrary to the findings of the Court; and

C. Ordering the protestant Jolly M. Macasaet and protestee Jorge Botyong to appear before the Session Hall of this Court the soonest possible time upon proper notice for the holding of the draw lots to break the tie.

No special pronouncement as to costs and civil liability.

SO ORDERED.

The drawing of lots did not materialize due to the timely appeal filed by Botyong before the COMELEC. Records show that Botyong's appellant's brief was personally filed with the COMELEC as early as June 13, 2008. Macasaet, however, failed to file his brief despite reasonable notice. Thus, by an Order dated January 22, 2009, he was declared to have waived his right to so file, and the case was submitted for resolution.

On June 15, 2010, the COMELEC Second Division^[6] ruled that, after a re-appreciation of the contested ballots, Macasaet is the duly elected Punong Barangay, having obtained a total of 147 votes as against the 146 votes in favor of Botyong, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission (Second Division) RESOLVES as it hereby RESOLVED as follows:

1. To REVERSE and SET ASIDE the decision of the court a quo dated 18 March 2008.

2. To ORDER the Office of the Election Officer of Calapan City and the Office of the Department of Interior and Local Government to INSTALL herein protestant-appellee Macasaet to the contested position.

Let a copy of this resolution be furnished the foregoing implementing offices.

SO ORDERED.^[7]

On June 22, 2010, Botyong filed a motion for reconsideration. In the COMELEC Order^[8] dated July 27, 2010, the motion was deemed legally nonexistent because of Botyong's failure to file the same and to pay the required fees within the five (5) day reglementary period provided in Section 2, Rule 19 and Section 7(f), Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. As such, the June 15, 2010 COMELEC resolution became final and executory as of July 2, 2010.

Accordingly, the COMELEC issued an entry of judgment^[9] and a writ of execution,^[10] ordering Botyong to cease and desist from discharging the powers and functions of the contested office and to vacate the same in favor of Macasaet.

Aggrieved, Botyong interposed the instant petition with an application for Temporary Restraining Order.

Meanwhile, even as the petition at bar was still pending before this Court, Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections were held on October 25, 2010, and a new Punong Barangay was elected.

In light of this development, the Court dismisses the petition.

The issue as to who between Botyong and Macasaet is entitled to the office of Punong Barangay in connection with the 2007 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections, is now rendered moot and academic since the term of office of the contested post expired on November 30, 2010.^[11]

In Sales v. COMELEC,^[12] this Court reiterated the settled doctrine that the expiration of the term of the challenged office renders the corresponding petition moot and academic. Citing the earlier case of Malaluan v. COMELEC^[13] we pronounced:

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.

A case becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy so that a declaration on the issue would be of no practical use or value. In such cases, there is no actual substantial relief which petitioner would be entitled to and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition.^[14]

Indeed, to pass upon the petition's merits would be futile, pointless, and would not have any practical legal effect on the present controversy since the parties are contesting an elective post to which their right to the office no longer exists. As clearly pointed out in Sales:^[15]

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.

Consequently, we must abide by our consistent ruling that where certain events or circumstances have taken place during the pendency of the case which would render the case moot and academic, the petition should be dismissed.^[16]

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. Velasco, Jr., J., on official business.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 32-34.

^[2] Id. at 21-28.

^[3] Precinct Nos. 0270-A, 0271-A and 0272-A.

^[4] Rollo, pp. 37-40.

^[5] Id. at 43-62.

^[6] Composed of Presiding Commissioner Nicodemo T. Ferrer and Commissioners Lucenito N. Tagle and Elias R. Yusoph.

^[7] Rollo, p. 32.

^[8] Supra note 1.

^[9] Rollo, p. 68.

^[10] Id. at 69-70.

^[11] Section 4 in relation to Section 2 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9164, AN ACT PROVIDING FOR SYNCHRONIZED BARANGAY AND SANGGUNIANG KABATAAN ELECTIONS, AMENDING R.A. NO. 7160, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991," AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, as amended by R.A. No. 9340 provides:

Section 4. Assumption of Office. - The term of office of the barangay and sangguniang kabataan officials elected under this Act shall commence on August 15, 2002, next following their elections. The term of office of the barangay and sangguniang kabataan officials elected in the October 2007 election and subsequent elections shall commence at noon of November 30, next following their election. (Emphasis ours.)

Section 2. Term of Office. - The term of office of all barangay and sangguniang kabataan officials after the effectivity of this Act shall be three (3) years.

^[*] R.A. No. 9164 was enacted on March 19, 2002.

^[12] G.R. No. 174668, September 12, 2007, 533 SCRA 173.

^[13] 324 Phil. 676, 683 (1996). (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted.)

^[14] Garayblas v. Atienza, Jr., G.R. No. 149493, June 22, 2006, 492 SCRA 202, 216; Soriano Vda. de Dabao v. Court of Appeals, 469 Phil. 928, 937 (2004); see also Enrile v. Senate Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 132986, May 19, 2004, 428 SCRA 472, 477.

^[15] Supra note 12, at 176-177. (Citations omitted.)

^[16] Villarosa v. Trajano, G.R. No. 73679, July 23, 1992, 211 SCRA 685, 691; see also Gunsi, Sr. v. Commissioners, The, Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 168792, February 23, 2009, 580 SCRA 70, 76;

David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. Nos. 171396, 171409, 171485, 171483, 171400, 171489, and 171424, May 3, 2006, 489 SCRA 160, 213.