SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 220514, September 25, 2019
RUBEN T. OCLARINO, ABBIE S. HILAY, CUSTODIO N. NONAILLADA, JR., HENEDIN F. TORRECAMPO, ISIDRO A. MORILLO, ROBERTO R. PANGAN, ROGELIO O. DIÑO, BEBIANO S. GANDAMON, ASTERIO S. CATIBIG, DAVID G. GUJILDE, ROBERTO Y. NUGOY, EDUARDO H. SOTTO, ALLAN JEAN E. SANDAG, VICENTE P. DUYOG, ORLANDO C. PELARES, MARLON A. ALERTA and EXPEDITO A. SOLIVAR, Petitioners, vs. SILVERIO J. NAVARRO, EDUARDOCRISTOBAL, REYNALDO BERNARDO, DANILO SALAZAR, MAXIMO ESPINOSA, ROMEO DIÑO, ISAGANI SAMONTE, REYWELL RUAYA, VIRGILIO SECO, RUBEN ESTOCADA, WARSON GUY-AB, ANGELITO BAYAWA, JOSE PIRIGRIN, VALERIANO CANTUNGAN, ROGELIO PAGSISIHAN and NEMENCIO AGUILAR, RESPONDENTS.
R E S O L U T I O N
REYES, J. JR., J.:
Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari are the April 30, 2015 Decision1 and the September 15, 2015 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 134482 which affirmed the February 10, 2014 Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court, Parañaque City, Branch 258 (RTC) in Civil Case No. 10-0070, an intra-corporate election contest.
WHEREFORE, in [the] light of the foregoing, the instant case is hereby DISMISSED for being moot and academic.Aggrieved, the petitioners elevated an appeal before the CA.
SO ORDERED.5
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated February 10, 2014 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Para[ñ]aque is hereby AFFIRMED.The petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated September 15, 2015.
IT IS SO ORDERED.6
The Issue
WHETHER THIS PETITION PRESENTS A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY AFTER THE TERM OF OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENTS HAVE ALREADY EXPIRED.
None of these circumstances are present in this case. The expiration of the respondents' term of office operates as a supervening event that mooted the present petition. The petitioners, however, insist that the case falls under the fifth exception, i.e., the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. There are two factors to be considered before a case is deemed one capable of repetition yet evading review: (1) the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration; and (2) there was a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action.11 In this case, while the respondents were re-elected, their re-election was never assailed. Also, there is no sufficient showing that the respondents would seek further re-election, and even if they do, their victory is not guaranteed. Moreover, the qualifications which the petitioners alleged that the respondents lack could be subsequently cured. To be sure, the respondents could easily become owners of tricycle units. Further, the petitioners did not present any proof to contradict the respondents' evidence that they are high school graduates and even if indeed the respondents did not graduate from high school, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that they would do so. At this point, it must be emphasized that the second requisite requires "reasonable expectation," not mere speculation that the complaining party would be subjected to the same action.
(1) Grave constitutional violations; (2) Exceptional character of the case; (3) Paramount public interest; (4) The case presents an opportunity to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; or (5) The case is capable of repetition yet evading review.10
Finally, the application of the fourth exception [to the rule on mootness] is called for by the recognition that the preparation and passage of the national budget is, by constitutional imprimatur, an affair of annual occurrence. The relevance of the issues before the Court does not cease with the passage of a "PDAF-free budget for 2014." The evolution of the "Pork Barrel System," by its multifarious iterations throughout the course of history, lends a semblance of truth to petitioners' claim that "the same dog will just resurface wearing a different collar." In Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, the government had already backtracked on a previous course of action yet the Court used the "capable of repetition but evading review" exception in order "[t]o prevent similar questions from re-emerging." The situation similarly holds true to these cases. Indeed, the myriad of issues underlying the manner in which certain public funds are spent, if not resolved at this most opportune time, are capable of repetition and hence, must not evade judicial review.13 [Emphases supplied; citations omitted]Evidently, unlike the PDAF which was incorporated in the annual budget, the election of the respondents is neither certain nor definite.
After a careful consideration of the facts of this case, We are of the considered view that the expiration of the terms of office of the union officers and the election of officers on November 28, 1988 have rendered the issues raised by petitioners in this case moot and academic. It is pointless and unrealistic to insist on annulling an election of officers whose terms had already expired. We would have thereby a judgment on a matter which cannot have any practical legal effect upon a controversy, even if existing, and which, in the nature of things, cannot be enforced. We must consequently abide by our consistent ruling that where certain events or circumstances have taken place during the pendency of the case which would render the case moot and academic, the petition should be dismissed.18 [Emphases supplied; citations omitted]Indeed, an academic discussion of a case presenting a moot question is not necessary, because a judgment on the case cannot have any practical legal effect or, in the nature of things, cannot be enforced. Stated otherwise, the Court will not determine a moot question in a case in which no practical relief can be granted.19
Endnotes:
1 Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser, with Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Edwin D. Sorongon, concurring; rollo, pp. 31-40.
2 Id. at 41-42.
3 Penned by Presiding Judge Noemi J. Balitaan; id. at 407-413.
4 Id. at 111.
5 Id. at 413.
6 Id. at 39.
7Spouses Arevalo v. Planters Development Bank, 686 Phil. 236, 248 (2012).
8Gunsi, Sr v. Commissioners, Commission on Elections, 599 Phil, 223, 229 (2009).
9David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 522 Phil. 705, 753 (2006).
10Republic v. Moldex Realty, Inc., 780 Phil. 553, 561 (2016).
11International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), 791 Phil. 243, 273 (2016).
12 721 Phil. 416, 522 (2013).
13 Id. at 524-525.
14 324 Phil. 676, 683 (1996).
15 559 Phil. 593, 597 (2007).
16 607 Phil. 281, 286 (2009).
17 256 Phil. 64, 71 (1989).
18 Id.
19Villarico v. Court of Appeals, 424 Phil. 26, 34 (2002).