ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 146460.September 18, 2001]

ROCO vs. COMMISSION OF ELECTIONS et al.

EN BANC

Gentleman:

Quoted hereunder , for your information , is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 18 2001

G.R. No. 146460 (Sulpicio S. Roco, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections (Second Division) and Luis Raymond F. Villafuerte.)

Petitioner Sulpicio Roco, Jr. and private respondent Luis Raymond F. Villafuerte, Jr. were both candidates for Mayor in Naga City during the May 11, 1998 elections. After the counting of votes, the Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed petitioner as the elected Mayor of Naga City. Private respondent thereafter filed an election protest with the Comelec which was docketed as EPC No. 98-6. The hearing of the protest could not, however, proceed because the ballot boxes were in the possession of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET), before which was pending another electoral protest filed by private respondent's brother involving the congressional seat in the Second District of Camarines Sur. ¹ HRET Case No. 98-002 entitled "Mariano Jose Villfuerte v. Jaime Jacob".

On November 23, 2000, the HRET dismissed the congressional protest of private respondent's brother when it found that the reversal of votes in favor of Villafuerte's brother during the revision was fraudulent and was made possible by tampering and substitution of the genuine ballots in Naga City, Bombon and Calabanga with "fake/spurious or unofficial ones." ² Rollo, p. 46.A motion for reconsideration thereto was subsequently denied by the HRET in an order dated December 14, 2000. ³ Ibid., pp. 129-130.

On December 22, 2000, the Clerk of Court of the Comelec's Second Division was advised by the Canvassing Board of the HRET that the case involving the congressional seat in the Second District of Camarines Sur has been decided, hence, the ballot boxes in their custody could be transmitted to the Commission. Pursuant to the said advice, Comelec issued the first challenged Order dated December 22, 2000 ⁴ Id., pp. 20-24.in EPC No. 98-6 which, inter alia, directed the Commission's Contested Ballot Box Custodian or his assistant and support staff to coordinate with the Secretary of the HRET and cause the transmittal of the subject ballot boxes from the HRET to the Comelec Main Office on January 4, 2001; and ordered the protestant to prepare and be ready with the list of specific ballot boxes to be retrieved with particulars as to the precinct number as well as the ballot box and self-locking metal seal serial numbers and furnish a copy thereof to the Commission's Contested Ballot Box Custodians.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the above-mentioned order of the Commission. He argued that private respondent must first prove that the integrity of the ballots to be revised had been preserved in the manner provided by law, consideration the HRET's finding that almost half of the number of ballot boxes of the precincts in Naga City had hen tampered with.

The motion for reconsideration was denied by the Commission in an Order dated January 8, 2001. ⁵ Id., pp. 26-28.

Dissatisfied, petitioner elevated his cause to this Court.

It bears stressing that whatever may be the merits of the arguments advanced for or against the challenged orders of the Comelec have been rendered moot and academic by the recent holding of the May 14, 2001 elections of national and local elective officials. The assumption into office of the newly elected Mayor of Naga City on June 30, 2001 made the issues raised herein academic.

Given these supervening events, the resolution of the basic issue of whether or not the Comelec gravely abused its discretion in ordering the constitution of six (6) revision committee for the purpose of revising the ballots in question is no longer necessary. No useful purpose may be served by resolving the petition. Any ruling in this case could hardly be of any practical or useful purpose in the premises." [C]ourts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest, however intellectually challenging. ⁶ PACU v. Secretary of Education , of 97 Phil. 806, 810 [1955].As a condition precedent to the exercise of judicial power, an actual controversy between litigants must first exist." ⁷ Guingona , Jr. v. Court of Appeals , 292 SCRA 402, 413 [1998].In a litany of eases, ⁸ Nakpil , et al. v. Aragon , et al., 95 SCRA 85 [1980]; Toribio v. Bidin , 96 SCRA 361 [1980]; Gumaua v. Espino , 96 SCRA 402 [1980].the Court dismissed petitions filed before it for being moot and academic.

ACCORDINGLY, in view of all the foregoing, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for being moot and academic.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) FELIPA B. ANAMA

Acting Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE