ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 159493.� August 10, 2004]

FORTUNO vs. COMELEC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 10 2004 .

G.R. NO. 159493 (RODOLFO Z. FORTUNO versus COMMISSION ON ELECTION and JESUS ROBREDO.)

On October 10, 2003, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the August 5, 2003 resolution of the COMELEC en banc in EPC No. 2001-2 which dismissed petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the resolution dated September 23, 2002 of its Second Division. The latter, in turn, dismissed the petition for quo warranto.

Petitioner Rodolfo Z. Fortuno and private respondent Jesse M. Robredo vied for the position of Mayor of Naga City, Camarines Sur during the May 14, 2001 elections.

Petitioner filed a petition to cancel private respondent's certificate of candidacy alleging that private respondent falsely represented himself as a natural-born Filipino citizen when in truth and in fact he was a Chinese citizen.

On May 17, 2001, private respondent was proclaimed as the winning mayoralty candidate.

On May 25, 2001, petitioner filed a petition for quo warranto, docketed as EPC No. 2001-2, contesting private respondent's proclamation and assumption of office on the ground of ineligibility since the latter was allegedly a Chinese citizen.

On June 21, 2001, the COMELEC's Second Division denied the petition to cancel private respondent's certificate of candidacy earlier filed by petitioner and declared private respondent a Filipino by implied election, thus eligible to seek the mayoral post of Naga City in the May 14, 2001 elections.

By reason of the dismissal of the petition to cancel certificate of candidacy, private respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition for quo warranto filed by petitioner after the elections.

On September 23, 2002, the COMELEC's Second Division dismissed the quo warranto case for being moot and academic because private respondent's citizenship had already been determined and resolved in a resolution dated June 21, 2001.

Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration which the Second Division certified to the COMELEC en banc. This was dismissed on August 5, 2003.

On October 21 2003, this Court resolved to dismiss the petition for having been filed five days late. On November 14, 2003, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which the Court granted in the resolution dated December 9, 2003.

After the petition was reinstated, respondent filed his comment on February 6, 2004 while the Office of the Solicitor General filed its comment on April 27, 2004.

Petitioner twice asked for an extension of the period for filing his consolidated reply, first on May 12, 2004 and then on May 18, 2004.

Petitioner filed his consolidated reply only on May 20, 2004 at which time the May 10, 2004 national and local elections had already taken place.

In view of the fact that a new mayor has already been elected for the 2004-2007 term, the instant petition must be dismissed for being moot and academic.

Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours.

(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE