GR 164496; (April, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 164496, April 2, 2007
ISIDORO L. SORIANO, JR., ET AL. vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.
FACTS
Petitioners and private respondents were candidates for City Councilor in Muntinlupa City during the May 2004 elections. After private respondents were proclaimed winners, petitioners filed separate election protests covering all precincts in their respective districts. The COMELEC First Division consolidated these cases. Subsequently, on June 26, 2004, the COMELEC issued orders directing each petitioner-protestant to individually deposit substantial sums (₱454,020 for the First District and ₱408,990 for the Second District) to defray revision expenses under the COMELEC Rules. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, arguing the deposit should be a joint obligation of all protestants per district, not an individual liability. The COMELEC denied their motion.
Petitioners then filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC in imposing individual cash deposits. However, during the pendency of this petition, the COMELEC First Division issued an Order dated May 31, 2005, dismissing the underlying election protests for failure of the parties to pay the required deposits.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court can review the COMELEC’s interlocutory orders requiring individual cash deposits after the main election protest cases have been dismissed.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that the assailed orders of June 26, 2004, requiring cash deposits were merely interlocutory—they did not dispose of the election protests on the merits but were incidental to the revision process. As a rule, interlocutory orders are not appealable and cannot be the subject of a special civil action for certiorari unless issued with grave abuse of discretion and there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Crucially, the legal landscape changed when the COMELEC dismissed the main election protest cases for non-payment of the deposits. This dismissal rendered the petition moot and academic. The Court’s resolution of the propriety of the interlocutory deposit orders would have no practical legal effect, as there were no longer any live protests to which a revision of ballots could apply. The Court emphasized that it does not adjudicate moot cases or issue advisory opinions. Furthermore, petitioners had an adequate remedy by appealing the final order of dismissal to the COMELEC En Banc, as provided by the Constitution, before resorting to the Supreme Court. Their direct recourse to the Court via certiorari against an interlocutory order was procedurally infirm.