G.R. No. L-31499 October 31, 1972
GERARDO ROXAS and THE LIBERAL PARTY, petitioners, vs. THE AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINES and/or RAMON MORADA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Gerardo Roxas and the Liberal Party filed a petition for prohibition to challenge the validity of the President’s designation of respondent Ramon Morada as acting member of the Davao City Council. The vacancy arose when incumbent councilor Cornelio Maskariño, an elected Liberal Party candidate, filed a certificate of candidacy for congressman for the 1969 elections. Petitioners argued that under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 180 , as amended, a permanent vacancy in a local elective office must be filled by presidential appointment of a person belonging to the same political party as the predecessor, upon that party’s recommendation. They contended that Morada, not being a Liberal Party member or recommendee, was ineligible for the appointment, rendering the designation null and void. They sought to restrain the Auditor General from auditing and allowing disbursements for Morada’s salaries and benefits.
Respondents, in their answers, raised procedural and substantive defenses. The Solicitor General, for the Auditor General, argued that the petition was improperly filed as a prohibition suit instead of quo warranto, that Roxas lacked legal standing, and that the Liberal Party had no capacity to sue. Respondent Morada asserted that the applicable law was the automatic succession rule under the Decentralization Act ( R.A. No. 5185 ) and the Davao City Charter, contending that the vacancy should have been filled automatically by the next ranking councilor, leaving only the last seat for presidential appointment.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for prohibition challenging the appointment of Ramon Morada as acting city councilor of Davao City has been rendered moot and academic.

RULING

Yes, the case is moot and academic. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on this ground. The core legal issue—the validity of Morada’s appointment to fill a vacancy created in 1969—ceased to have practical legal significance because Morada was no longer in office. He was not re-elected as councilor in the subsequent local elections held on November 9, 1971. Consequently, the position was occupied by a different individual duly elected in 1971. A judicial declaration on the legality of the past appointment would not provide any effective relief or resolve any existing, live controversy. The Court noted that from the filing of the petition, no other person had come forward claiming a superior right to the office against Morada. Furthermore, the parties’ lack of response to a Court resolution requiring them to show cause why the case was not moot implied a lack of interest to prosecute and conformity to dismissal. Therefore, the Court refrained from making a pronouncement on the substantive merits of the appointment’s validity, as such a discussion would be purely academic. The case was dismissed without costs.