G.R. No. L-38415. June 28, 1974.
Constantino A. Nuñez, petitioner, vs. Hon. Alberto V. Averia and Edgardo H. Morales, substituted by Rodolfo de Leon, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Constantino A. Nuñez was the protestant in Election Case No. TM-470 before the Court of First Instance of Cavite, contesting the November 8, 1971 election results for the mayoralty of Tarnate, Cavite on grounds of fraud and irregularities. The original protestee was the proclaimed mayor-elect, Edgardo Morales. Following Morales’s death on February 15, 1974, he was succeeded by then Vice-Mayor Rodolfo de Leon, who was substituted as the party respondent in the case.
Respondent Judge Alberto V. Averia, in an order dated January 31, 1974, granted the protestee’s motion to dismiss the election protest. The court ruled it had lost jurisdiction, declaring the case moot and academic. This conclusion was based on the President’s authority under General Order No. 3 and Article XVII, Section 9 of the newly ratified 1973 Constitution, which empowered the President to remove all incumbent officials, thereby arguably altering the terms of elected positions. Petitioner filed a timely appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance retained jurisdiction to hear and decide the pending election protest notwithstanding the ratification of the 1973 Constitution and the issuance of General Order No. 3.

RULING

The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal order and directed the trial court to proceed with the election protest. The ruling was anchored on the Court’s recent en banc decision in the consolidated cases of Paredes, Sunga, and Valley. The Court held that courts of first instance should continue exercising jurisdiction over election protests filed prior to the constitutional transition.
The legal logic is clear: First, the right of the proclaimed officials to hold office indefinitely under Article XVII, Section 9 of the 1973 Constitution stemmed primarily from their proclamation in the 1971 elections. If they were not duly elected, they should not benefit from that indefinite term. The Constitution did not create a new term but extended the existing one, making the validity of their election still subject to judicial challenge. Second, existing laws, including Section 220 of the 1971 Election Code granting the right to file an election contest, remained operative under the transitory provisions (Article XVII, Section 7). Third, Article XVII, Section 8 mandated that all existing courts continue exercising their jurisdiction under laws in force at the time of ratification. Therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing the case as moot; its jurisdiction to hear, try, and decide the protest on its merits remained intact. The Supreme Court emphasized that the constitutional framework could not be interpreted to shield potentially fraudulent electoral victories from judicial scrutiny.