Ho v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the results of the mayoral election in Bongao, Sulu, held on November 14, 1967. Petitioner Binging Ho and respondent Bonsan Go were candidates for the position of Mayor. Ho sought a judicial recount of votes in precinct No. 13 due to alleged discrepancies in the election return. 2. Procedural History: Following a judicial recount, the Court of First Instance of Sulu ordered the municipal board of canvassers to complete the canvass using the judicial return. Respondent Bonsan Go appealed this order to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-29051). The Commission on Elections initially denied Go's request to halt the canvass but later stayed its own resolution pending the Supreme Court's decision on the appeal. Despite these actions, Binging Ho was proclaimed Mayor twice, but these proclamations were subsequently set aside by the Commission on Elections. 3. The Petition: Binging Ho filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition, seeking to annul the Commission on Elections' resolutions of October 22 and December 10, 1968, which set aside his proclamations. Ho argued that his proclamations were made in accordance with prior directives. However, the Supreme Court had already decided the related appeal (G.R. No. L-29051) on July 28, 1969, affirming the lower court's order to complete the canvass, thereby rendering Ho's petition moot and academic as the relief sought had been granted.
Issue(s)
Whether the instant petition to annul the COMELEC resolutions has been rendered moot and academic by the final decision of the Supreme Court in the related judicial recount case, G.R. No. L-29051.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed, without costs, as it has become moot and academic.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the petition became moot and academic following its decision in G.R. No. L-29051. In that related case, the Court affirmed the CFI's orders and explicitly directed the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Bongao, Sulu, to convene and include the judicial return from Precinct No. 13 in the final canvass. The Court in L-29051 further commanded the board to immediately proclaim the winning candidate based on the total votes appearing in the returns, including the judicial return. Because the relief sought by Binging Ho in the present case—the validation of the canvass process involving the judicial recount—was effectively granted and finalized by the decision in the other case, there was no longer a justiciable controversy. The outcome of the judicial recount case provided a final determination of the 'true and correct result of the election,' which was the underlying justification for the COMELEC's stay. Therefore, the Court found that any further adjudication on the validity of the COMELEC's interim resolutions would have no practical effect or legal consequence.
Main Doctrine
A petition before the Supreme Court becomes moot and academic when the relief prayed for by the petitioner has been achieved in another case decided by the same Court.