G.R. No. L-53747 February 20, 1981
Fernando Laguda, petitioner, vs. Commission on Elections and Municipal Board of Canvassers of La Libertad, Negros Oriental, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Fernando Laguda, the incumbent Mayor of La Libertad, Negros Oriental who failed in his re-election bid in the January 1980 elections, filed this petition for injunction on May 2, 1980. He sought to enjoin the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and the Municipal Board of Canvassers from continuing the canvass of votes from certain precincts. He alleged serious irregularities, principally that voting in those precincts was conducted up to January 31, 1980, beyond the authorized election date, without COMELEC authority. This Court issued a restraining order on May 8, 1980.
In its Answer, the COMELEC argued that the alleged grounds—electoral frauds, irregularities, and threats—were proper subjects for a full-blown election protest, not a summary pre-proclamation proceeding. It further revealed that the canvassing had continued and was completed, and the winning candidates, including the new Mayor, were proclaimed on May 5, 1980. The restraining order was received only on May 12, 1980, after the proclamation. The COMELEC thus prayed for the petition’s dismissal for lack of merit and for being moot and academic.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for injunction to stop the canvass of election returns should be granted.

RULING

No. The petition is dismissed for lack of merit and for being moot and academic. The legal logic proceeds from three key points. First, the nature of the petitioner’s allegations—involving complex factual disputes requiring the presentation and evaluation of conflicting testimonies on fraud and irregularities—makes them unsuitable for summary pre-proclamation proceedings. Such matters are more appropriately and thoroughly ventilated in a regular election protest, where a proper examination of evidence can be conducted.
Second, following the doctrine established in Venezuela v. Commission on Elections, once an election has been held, followed by canvassing and proclamation, the proper remedy for an aggrieved candidate is to file an election protest or a quo warranto proceeding. The instant case falls squarely under this rule, as the proclamation of the winning candidates had already occurred.
Third, the petition has been rendered moot. The canvassing sought to be enjoined was completed, the winning candidates were proclaimed, and the Mayor-elect had assumed office. The act sought to be prevented had become a fait accompli. The petitioner’s failure to file a reply contesting these factual allegations in the Answer constituted an implied admission. Granting the injunction would serve no useful purpose.