ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 132520.August 10, 1999]

PLACIDO M. CALMA vs. COMELEC AND VIRGILIO A. BOTE.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 10, 1999.

G.R. No. 132520(Placido M. Calma vs. Commission on Elections and Virgilio A. Bote.)

Before us is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, assailing the resolution of the COMELEC in EAC No. 16-96 that affirmed the decision by the Regional Trial Court of Gapan, Nueva Ecija, in Election Case No. 95-01.

Petitioner Placido M. Calma and private respondent Virgilio A. Bote were candidates for mayor of General Tinio, Nueva Ecija, during the 1995 elections.The Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed petitioner as duly elected mayor on May 12, 1995.Private respondent filed an election protest on May 19, 1995, alleging massive fraud and various irregularities during the elections.He prayed for the annulment of petitioner's proclamation.

In the course of proceedings below, the trial court ordered the reopening of the ballot boxes in the contested precincts. Revision of the ballots in said precincts started on August 4, 1995.

In its decision dated April 15, 1996, the trial court annulled .petitioner's proclamation and declared private respondent the duly elected mayor of General Tinio.Petitioner appealed to the COMELEC but, as previously stated, it affirmed the decision of the trial court in a COMELEC resolution promulgated on May 14, 1997.The COMELEC also denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration of its resolution.It declared that private respondent had won over petitioner by 23 votes.Hence, petitioner's recourse to this Court.

In his present petition for certiorari, petitioner assigns the following errors:

"RESPONDENT COMELEC (En Banc and its First Division) COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OR JURISDICTION WHEN -

5.1[IT] ABSOLUTELY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST PETITIONER HEREIN AND UNDULY FAVORED PRIVATE RESPONDENT IN ITS PARTIAL AND BIASED APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE THAT "TO ASCERTAIN THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE (ON) WHO IS THE ONE DULY ELECTED, THE CASE IS THROWN WIDE OPEN FOR REVIEW BY THE APPELATE COURT"...;

5.2[IT] ERRONEOUSLY INVALIDATED THE VOTES FOR HEREIN PETITIONER BY VIRTUE OF A MANIFEST AND CAPRICIOUS APPLICATION OF RULE ON INVALIDATION OF THE "WRITTEN BY ONE PERSON" RULE AND WITHOUT FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS."

Petitioner cites as unfair, inconsistent and iniquitous the COMELEC's act of considering for review only those ballots wherein the votes were in favor of petitioner, as objected to by private respondent, and not all the other ballots.This, he said, is in violation of our ruling in Juliano v. Court of Appeals ¹ 20 SCRA 808 (1967).that technicalities should be avoided in resolving election contests.

Further, petitioner points out that the COMELEC (First Division) did not state why or how it arrived at the conclusion that 337 ballots bore the same handwriting style, so as to justify their invalidation. Petitioner asserts that this was an error, made more glaring by the fact that the trial court had found only 107 ballots to have been written by one person.

Both public and private respondents commented, as required, on the petition and prayed for its dismissal for lack of merit.The public respondent, through the Solicitor General, stressed that it acted on the basis of its "power and authority as sole arbiter of all election contest(s);" and since it was only performing its official duty, "it has not acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction." ² Rollo , p. 183.

While this petition was pending, however, petitioner filed on March 27, 1998, his certificate of candidacy for governor of Nueva Ecija during the elections scheduled on May 11, 1998.This act, according to the Manifestation filed by private respondent on April 20, 1998, showed petitioner's "lack of interest in pursuing further the prosecution of the instant case." ³ Rollo , p. 174.On this point, we are in agreement. Noteworthy, the Constitution ⁴ Article X, Sec. 8.sets a three-Year term of office for elective local officials, such as municipal mayors; and following the Local Government Code, ⁵ Sec. 4, R.A. 7160, LGC.the term for the position of mayor herein contested would have commenced at noon of June 30, 1995, but would have expired on June 30, 1998. As ruled in a number of cases, the expiration of the term of office contested in an election protest has the effect of rendering the case moot and academic. ⁶ Malaluan v. COMELEC , 254 SCRA 397 (1996); Atienza v. COMELEC . 239 SCRA 298 (1994); Yorac v. Magalona , 3 SCRA 76 (1961).We are, thus, constrained to dismiss this petition.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE