G.R. No. L-22508 November 25, 1968
Floro Buenconsejo, petitioner, vs. The Court of Industrial Relations, Union Obrera de Tabaco and Tito Bilangel, respondents.

FACTS

Prior to the biennial election of officers of the Union Obrera de Tabaco scheduled for March 1, 1964, petitioner Floro Buenconsejo filed his certificate of candidacy for president in accordance with the union’s constitution and by-laws. On February 14, 1964, the union returned his certificate, advising him he could not participate for unstated reasons. Due to rumors that respondent Tito Bilangel would control the election as the sole candidate, petitioner filed an unfair labor practice charge against the union and Bilangel before the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) on February 10, 1964. Subsequently, the Acting Prosecutor filed a complaint for unfair labor practice. Petitioner then filed an Urgent Petition for Preliminary Injunction with the CIR, asking the court to enjoin the union to include him as a candidate in the March 1 election. Despite petitioner’s urgent motions for immediate resolution, the CIR had not acted on his petition. Contending that the CIR’s inaction would operate to exclude him from the election, petitioner filed an original action for mandamus with preliminary injunction with the Supreme Court on February 26, 1964, primarily seeking his inclusion as a candidate. The Supreme Court issued a resolution on February 28, 1964, requiring respondents to file an answer and ordering, without bond, a preliminary mandatory injunction for the CIR to act on the complaint in view of the scheduled election.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for mandamus to compel the Court of Industrial Relations to act on the plea for injunction to include petitioner as a candidate in the union election has become moot and academic.

RULING

The petition is dismissed as moot and academic. In their answer, respondents Tito Bilangel and the Union Obrera de Tabaco pleaded that the question of petitioner’s participation in the March 1, 1964 union election had become moot because the election was regularly held as scheduled without petitioner’s participation. This was due to petitioner’s inability to obtain a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction from the CIR for his inclusion, which failure was attributed to his inability to post the required bond. Petitioner did not deny this allegation. Consequently, there was no longer any justiciable controversy to resolve.