Roxas v. Auditor General
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case concerns the validity of the designation of Ramon Morada as an acting member of the Davao City Council. Gerardo Roxas and the Liberal Party challenged this appointment, arguing that Morada was not a member of nor recommended by the Liberal Party, which they contended was a requirement for filling a vacancy created by a Liberal Party councilor. The vacancy arose when Cornelio P. Maskariño, an elected Liberal Party councilor, filed his certificate of candidacy for congressman, which under election law is considered a resignation from his council seat. 2. Procedural History: The petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction was filed by Gerardo Roxas and the Liberal Party on January 22, 1970, against the Auditor General and Ramon Morada. The Supreme Court directed the respondents to file their answers. The Solicitor General, on behalf of the Auditor General, filed an answer asserting that the Auditor General could not review a Presidential designation and that the petition should have been a quo warranto. Ramon Morada also filed an answer, contesting the petitioners' claims regarding the number of council seats and the proper method of filling vacancies. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, in their capacity as taxpayers and leaders of the Liberal Party, filed this petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction. They sought to prevent the Auditor General from auditing and allowing payments of public funds to Ramon Morada, whose designation as acting Davao City Councilor was alleged to be null and void. The core of their argument was that Morada's appointment violated provisions of law requiring that vacancies in local elective offices be filled by persons belonging to the political party of the officer being replaced, and that Morada was not recommended by the Liberal Party. The petitioners specifically cited Section 21(b) of Republic Act No. 180.
Issue(s)
Whether the designation of Ramon Morada as acting city councilor of Davao City was valid. Whether the case has become moot and academic.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the case as moot and academic, without pronouncement as to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the designation of Ramon Morada: The Court noted that no person claimed superior right to the office of city councilor against Ramon Morada. Furthermore, respondent Morada was no longer a councilor as he was not elected in the November 9, 1971 local elections. The position must presently be occupied by someone elected in those elections. Therefore, a discussion of the issues raised by the parties would be purely academic. On whether the case has become moot and academic: The Court found that the supervening event of respondent Ramon Morada not being re-elected in the 1971 local elections rendered the case moot and academic. The resolution of the validity of his designation, which was questioned in the petition, would no longer have any practical effect. The Court also inferred lack of interest from the parties in prosecuting the case, as they failed to file pleadings as required by a previous resolution.
Main Doctrine
A case that has become moot and academic due to supervening events, such as the expiration of the term of office of the appointee and the subsequent local elections, will be dismissed without pronouncement as to costs.