G.R. No. L-33833 January 31, 1973
Pedro C. Parojinog, Jr., petitioner, vs. Hon. Geronimo R. Marave, Presiding Judge, Branch II, Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental; Arturo del Pozo; Timoteo Padilla; and Mayor Hilarion A. Ramiro, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Pedro C. Parojinog, Jr. filed a petition for review by certiorari to challenge the decision of respondent Judge Geronimo R. Marave dismissing his quo warranto suit. The suit sought to challenge the right of respondent Arturo del Pozo to hold the position of Deputy Chief of Police of the Ozamis City Police Department. Respondent Timoteo Padilla was later included as a respondent after he was appointed to the same position, succeeding del Pozo. The respondent Judge dismissed the quo warranto action on the ground that petitioner held only a temporary appointment. The court ruled that his subsequent acquisition of a civil service eligibility did not prevent the city mayor from terminating his incumbency, as his tenure was at the discretion of the appointing officer.
Subsequently, on November 28, 1972, petitioner filed a supplemental pleading informing the Court of significant developments. He stated that on January 1, 1972, he was appointed and assumed the position of Chief of Police of Ozamis City, which he continued to hold. Furthermore, respondent Timoteo Padilla resigned from the contested position of Deputy Chief of Police on March 15, 1972, and his resignation was accepted by the City Mayor. Given these new circumstances, petitioner asserted that the central issue of who was rightfully entitled to the office of Deputy Chief of Police had become moot and academic.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for certiorari, which seeks to review the dismissal of the quo warranto action regarding the office of Deputy Chief of Police, has been rendered moot and academic by supervening events.

RULING

Yes, the petition is dismissed for being moot and academic. The Court, speaking through Justice Fernando, applied the fundamental legal principle that courts will not determine a case where no actual controversy exists or where the issues have ceased to be justiciable due to subsequent events. A quo warranto proceeding is a prerogative writ used to challenge a person’s right to hold a public office. Its very purpose is to adjudicate the title to that specific office.
The supplemental pleading established two critical supervening facts: first, the petitioner himself was no longer claiming the deputy position, having been appointed to the higher office of Chief of Police; and second, the respondent against whom the action was primarily directed, Timoteo Padilla, had resigned from the contested deputy position. Consequently, the office which was the very subject matter of the litigation was vacated, and the petitioner no longer had a present, substantial interest in occupying it. With the position empty and the original parties no longer disputing it, any judicial declaration on the matter would be an abstract opinion without practical legal effect. The Court therefore held that the case presented no live controversy requiring adjudication and dismissed the petition without pronouncement as to costs.