Afiado vs. COMELEC

A recall resolution adopted against an incumbent Vice-Mayor for her acts in that office cannot be given due course after she has vacated that office by lawful succession to Mayor, succession being a supervening event rendering the recall proceeding moot and academic.

Petitioners Manuel H. Afiado, Jasminio B. Quemado, Jr. and Glesie L. Tangonan were officers of the Preparatory Recall Assembly composed of barangay officials of Santiago City. Amelita S. Navarro was the elected Vice-Mayor of Santiago City who later succeeded as City Mayor. Recall of elective local officials and its limitations are governed by Sections 71 and 74 of the Local Government Code of 1991, implemented through COMELEC proceedings.

During the May 11, 1998 elections in Santiago City, Joel Miranda became the substitute candidate for his father Jose Miranda for Mayor and was counted, proclaimed winner over Antonio Abaya, while Amelita S. Navarro won and was proclaimed Vice-Mayor. On May 13, 1998, Abaya filed before the COMELEC a petition docketed as SPA No. 98-288 against Joel Miranda, later amended to seek nullification of the certificate of candidacy of Jose Miranda. The COMELEC en banc granted the amended petition and annulled Joel Miranda's election and proclamation, a ruling affirmed by the Supreme Court on July 28, 1999 in G.R. No. 136531 on the ground that Jose Miranda's invalid certificate could not support substitution, with reconsideration denied with finality on September 28, 1999. By virtue of the law on succession, Vice-Mayor Navarro became the new Mayor, taking her oath and assuming office on October 11, 1999.

Meanwhile, on July 12, 1999 while G.R. No. 136531 was still pending, petitioners convened the barangay officials composing the Preparatory Recall Assembly at the Santiago City People's Coliseum after due notice, and on the same date the Assembly passed Preparatory Recall Assembly Resolution No. 1 for recall of Vice-Mayor Navarro. The resolution recounted official acts said to have caused loss of confidence, including lack of respect for superior authority, greed for political power, disregard for subordinates, usurpation of authority of other officials, delaying tactics on the annual budget, disregard of parliamentary rules, unacted legislative tasks, alleged malfeasance in the anomalous acquisition of six dump trucks then under Ombudsman investigation, and antagonism toward development concerns, and resolved to invoke rescission of the electoral mandate of the incumbent City Vice-Mayor for loss of confidence through a recall election under Section 71 of the Local Government Code of 1991. Petitioners forwarded the resolution with reglementary requirements through the Santiago City office and the Provincial and Regional Elections Offices to the COMELEC Head Office in Manila.

On September 9, 1999 while the resolution was under evaluation, then Vice-Mayor Navarro filed EM No. 99-006 with the COMELEC seeking nullification of PRA Resolution No. 1, impleading petitioners as respondents. Hearings were conducted at the head office and memoranda were submitted by the December 1, 1999 deadline. Alleging lack of information on further developments, petitioners filed on December 27, 1999 an Urgent Motion for Early Resolution, invoking the thirty-day period to decide under Rule 18, Section 7 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure and warning that inaction would render the case moot in view of the Section 74 recall limitations. Sensing urgency, petitioners filed on February 18, 2000 the present petition for mandamus to compel immediate resolution denying Navarro's petition and giving due course to and implementing the PRA Resolution. On March 31, 2000 the COMELEC promulgated its Resolution in EM No. 99-006 denying due course to PRA Resolution No. 1.

• Delay and Neglect of Duty: Petitioner argued that the COMELEC's failure to resolve EM No. 99-006 within the reglementary period violated Rule 18, Section 7 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure requiring en banc decisions within thirty days from submission, constituting neglect in the performance of its duties and responsibilities.
• Impending Mootness Under Recall Limitation: Petitioner maintained that continued inaction would render EM No. 99-006 and PRA Resolution No. 1 moot and academic because no recall could be undertaken after June 30, 2000 pursuant to Section 74 of the 1991 Local Government Code.
• Relief Sought: Petitioner argued that the COMELEC should be compelled to immediately resolve and deny Navarro's petition in EM No. 99-006 and in effect to give due course to and implement PRA Resolution No. 1.

• Mootness of Mandamus: Whether mandamus to compel the COMELEC to resolve EM No. 99-006 should still prosper after the COMELEC promulgated its March 31, 2000 Resolution denying due course to PRA Resolution No. 1.
• Recall After Succession: Whether an elective official who became City Mayor by legal succession may be subjected to recall by virtue of a Preparatory Recall Assembly Resolution adopted when she was still Vice-Mayor.

• Mootness of Mandamus: No. Mandamus was rendered moot and academic because the act sought to be compelled had already been performed by the March 31, 2000 COMELEC Resolution denying due course to the recall resolution.
• Recall After Succession: No. A recall resolution specifically invoking rescission of the vice-mayoral mandate for acts as Vice-Mayor cannot remove the same person as Mayor, succession having placed her beyond the reach of that resolution and the Section 74(b) prohibitive periods barring any timely new recall.

• Mootness of Mandamus: The relief prayed for was early resolution of EM No. 99-006, and on March 31, 2000 the COMELEC issued and promulgated its Resolution therein denying due course to PRA Resolution No. 1, copy of which was furnished petitioners' counsel by registered mail on April 1, 2000. Because the supervening issuance eliminated the alleged inaction complained of, dismissal of mandamus as moot and academic was required.
• Recall After Succession: The PRA Resolution by title and text targeted a specific official in relation to a specific office, recounting the official acts of City Vice Mayor Navarro and resolving to rescind the electoral mandate of the incumbent City Vice-Mayor for loss of confidence under Section 71. Since Navarro vacated the vice-mayoralty on October 11, 1999 upon assuming the mayoralty by succession following final annulment of Joel Miranda's election, applying that resolution to her as Mayor would deviate from the expressed will of the Assembly. Even a reconvened Assembly resolution against her as Mayor would not prosper because, having assumed as Mayor on October 11, 1999, the one year from assumption ending October 11, 2000 already fell within the one year immediately preceding the May 2001 regular election prohibited by Section 74(b).

• Mootness of mandamus where the act sought has been performed — Mandamus to compel performance of an official duty will not prosper when the duty has already been discharged by a supervening resolution, leaving no justiciable controversy. Applied here where the COMELEC's March 31, 2000 denial of due course extinguished the claim of inaction.
• Specificity of recall; succession as supervening event — A preparatory recall assembly resolution seeks rescission of the electoral mandate of a specific elective official for a specific office based on loss of confidence in acts in that office. Applied here where Resolution No. 1 expressly targeted the incumbent City Vice-Mayor for her vice-mayoral acts, so succession to Mayor placed Navarro beyond its reach.
• Limitation on recall — Only one recall per term is allowed, and no recall shall take place within one year from assumption or within one year immediately preceding a regular local election. Applied here where the October 11, 1999 assumption as Mayor left no allowable time before the May 2001 elections.

• "The assumption by legal succession of the petitioner as the new Mayor of Santiago City is a supervening event which rendered the recall proceeding against her moot and academic." — States the controlling reason for denying due course, that change of office by succession defeats a recall directed at the former office.
• "Clearly, the intent of the PRA as expressed in the said Resolution is to remove the petitioner as Vice Mayor for they already lost their confidence in her by reason of her official acts as such." — Defines the scope of the recall resolution as office-specific and bars its extension to the mayoralty.
• "No recall shall take place within one (1) year from the date of the official's assumption to office or one (1) year immediately preceding a regular local election." — Quotes the statutory prohibitive periods that independently barred a fresh recall against Navarro as Mayor.

• Joel Miranda vs. Antonio Abaya and COMELEC, 311 SCRA 617 (1999) — Followed as the final adjudication annulling Joel Miranda's substitution, election and proclamation, resulting in Navarro's succession as Mayor of Santiago City.

• Section 71, Local Government Code of 1991 — Invoked in PRA Resolution No. 1 as authority for setting a recall election for loss of confidence; the Assembly sought rescission of the vice-mayoral mandate through that mechanism.
• Section 74(b), Local Government Code of 1991 — Provides that no recall shall take place within one year from assumption or one year immediately preceding a regular local election; applied to hold that no timely recall of Navarro as Mayor remained possible before the May 2001 elections.
• Rule 18, Section 7, 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Requires en banc cases to be decided within thirty days from submission; invoked by petitioners to allege neglect for non-resolution of EM No. 99-006.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Buena, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur; Pardo, J., no part; Ynares-Santiago, J., on leave.