GR 121139; (July, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 121139 July 12, 1996
ISIDRO B. GARCIA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and AUGUSTO GARCIA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Isidro B. Garcia and respondent Augusto M. Garcia were both candidates for mayor of Tagig in the May 8, 1995 elections. Petitioner filed a petition with the COMELEC to declare respondent a nuisance candidate under Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code, alleging that respondent’s candidacy, sharing the same surname, was intended solely to cause voter confusion. The COMELEC Second Division granted the petition on May 4, 1995, canceling respondent’s certificate of candidacy based on the dubious veracity of his party nomination and his failure to campaign or produce campaign materials.
On May 10, 1995, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration. Meanwhile, the canvass proceeded, and petitioner was proclaimed the winning mayor on May 23, 1995. Another losing candidate, Ricardo Papa, subsequently filed an election protest. Despite acknowledging that the motion for reconsideration had been rendered moot by petitioner’s proclamation, the COMELEC en banc issued a resolution on June 30, 1995, granting the motion and reversing the Second Division’s ruling, thereby reinstating respondent as a legitimate candidate.
ISSUE
Did the COMELEC en banc commit grave abuse of discretion in granting respondent’s motion for reconsideration after the issue had become moot and academic due to petitioner’s proclamation?
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the COMELEC en banc resolution. The Court emphasized the entrenched rule that when issues become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, rendering any resolution thereof of no practical use or value. Here, petitioner’s proclamation as the duly elected mayor on May 23, 1995, occurred before the COMELEC en banc’s ruling on June 30, 1995. This proclamation supervened event rendered respondent’s motion for reconsideration moot, as the relief sought—reinstatement of his candidacy—could no longer affect the concluded electoral process or his status, given he did not dispute the proclamation’s validity.
The COMELEC itself admitted the mootness of the motion. By proceeding to grant it nonetheless, the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion, as its decision served no practical legal purpose and disregarded the operative principle of mootness. The Court found that the COMELEC had more than ample opportunity to be apprised of the proclamation and should have denied the motion accordingly. Thus, the resolution was annulled, and a new one was ordered entered denying the motion for reconsideration as moot and academic.