Garcia vs. COMELEC

A motion for reconsideration seeking to reverse a nuisance candidate declaration is rendered moot and academic by the proclamation of the winning candidate, and its resolution by the COMELEC constitutes grave abuse of discretion.

During the May 8, 1995 local elections, Isidro B. Garcia and Augusto M. Garcia were both candidates for mayor in Tagig, Metro Manila. Claiming that Augusto filed his certificate of candidacy solely to cause confusion among voters due to the similarity in their surnames, Isidro filed a petition with the COMELEC seeking to declare Augusto a nuisance candidate pursuant to Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code.

On May 4, 1995, the COMELEC Second Division granted the petition and declared Augusto a nuisance candidate. The ruling was based on the dubious veracity of Augusto's certificate of nomination by PDP-LABAN, his failure to actively campaign, and the absence of any campaign materials. Two days after the election, on May 10, 1995, Augusto filed a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC.

Meanwhile, the canvassing of election returns proceeded, resulting in the proclamation of Isidro as the winning candidate on May 23, 1995. Another losing candidate, Ricardo Papa, subsequently filed a petition for annulment of the proclamation and an election protest against Isidro. On June 30, 1995, the COMELEC En Banc promulgated a resolution granting Augusto's motion for reconsideration and reversing the nuisance candidate declaration, despite admitting that the motion had been rendered moot and academic by Isidro's proclamation. The COMELEC discarded Isidro's claim regarding Augusto's lack of logistical means, ruling that such an assumption had no bearing on Augusto's qualification to seek public office. Isidro subsequently filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court to nullify the COMELEC En Banc resolution.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner argued that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it granted respondent's motion for reconsideration despite having been rendered moot and academic by the proclamation of petitioner as duly elected mayor of Tagig.
• Conspiracy: Petitioner bewailed the fact that the motion was granted with the end in view of benefiting the pending electoral protest filed by losing candidate Ricardo Papa, whom petitioner alleged instigated and conspired with respondent to run for mayor to confuse voters.

• Legitimate Purpose: Private respondent denied the imputation of conspiracy and contended that his sole purpose in filing a motion for reconsideration was to reacquire his legal status as a legitimate and qualified candidate for public office.

• Moot and Academic: Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the private respondent's motion for reconsideration despite it having been rendered moot and academic by the proclamation of the petitioner as the winning candidate.

• Moot and Academic: Yes. The COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion for reconsideration, as the issue had already been rendered moot and academic by the proclamation of the petitioner.

• Moot and Academic: The rule is well-established that where issues have become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, rendering any resolution of no practical use or value. Despite the COMELEC's own admission that the motion for reconsideration was rendered moot by the petitioner's proclamation as duly elected mayor, it proceeded to grant the motion. The assailed resolution would no longer be of practical use or value to the private respondent, who did not even dispute the proclamation. Even the private respondent's stated purpose—to regain his legal status as a legitimate candidate—was rendered inconsequential by the proclamation. Because the COMELEC had ample opportunity to be apprised of the supervening events that rendered the motion moot, its failure to deny the motion constituted grave abuse of discretion.

• Moot and Academic Doctrine — Where the issues have become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, thereby rendering the resolution of the same of no practical use or value. The Court applied this doctrine to nullify the COMELEC's resolution, as the proclamation of the winning candidate rendered the motion for reconsideration seeking to reverse a nuisance candidate declaration moot and academic.

• "Well entrenched is the rule that where the issues have become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, thereby rendering the resolution of the same of no practical use or value." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi for setting aside the COMELEC resolution, defining the controlling doctrine on mootness applied to election proceedings.
• "But having failed to do so, respondent COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion." — This establishes the legal conclusion connecting the mootness of the motion to the finding of grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC En Banc.

• Southeast Asia Manufacturing Corporation vs. Municipal Council of Tagbilaran, 94 SCRA 341 (1979) — Cited to support the doctrine that courts will not resolve issues that have become moot and academic.
• Yorac vs. Magalona, 3 SCRA 76 (1961) — Cited alongside the preceding case as authority for the moot and academic doctrine.

• Section 69, Omnibus Election Code — Cited as the legal basis for the petition filed by the petitioner before the COMELEC to declare the private respondent a nuisance candidate.
• Rule 65, Rules of Court — The procedural rule under which the petition for certiorari was filed before the Supreme Court to nullify the COMELEC resolution for grave abuse of discretion.

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Hermosisima, Jr., Panganiban and Torres, Jr., JJ., concurred.