Bautista v. Primicias
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involved administrative charges of oppression and/or misconduct in office filed against Fe F. Bautista, the Municipal Mayor of Pozorrubio, Pangasinan. These charges were intimately related to a civil complaint filed by the Pozorrubio Market Vendors Association, Inc., questioning the validity of municipal ordinances sought to be enforced by Mayor Bautista concerning the vacating of market stalls for a new market building. The civil complaint was dismissed by the Court of First Instance, and an appeal was filed with the Court of Appeals. 2. Procedural History: Following the administrative charges, the Provincial Board of Pangasinan issued Resolution No. 176 and Resolution No. 185, resolving to preventively suspend Mayor Bautista. In response, Mayor Bautista filed an original action for prohibition with preliminary injunction against the Provincial Governor, members of the Provincial Board, and other co-respondents. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order and later an amended temporary restraining order to halt the hearing of the administrative case. Subsequently, the Provincial Board passed a resolution suspending the investigation of the administrative case indefinitely, citing the Decentralization Act which prohibits administrative investigations within ninety days prior to an election. The term of office for both the petitioner mayor and the respondent provincial officials expired at the end of 1971 without further action. 3. The Petition: The petitioner, Fe F. Bautista, filed an original action for prohibition with preliminary injunction seeking to question the legality and validity of Resolution No. 176 and Resolution No. 185 of the Provincial Board, which resolved to preventively suspend her from office. She also sought a restraining order or preliminary injunction against these resolutions and her impending suspension. The petition argued that the administrative investigation and potential suspension were improper, especially in light of the proximity to an election, as later acknowledged by the Provincial Board's own resolution citing the Decentralization Act.
Issue(s)
Whether the issues in the case have become moot and academic. Whether the provincial board's resolutions for preventive suspension were legal.
Ruling
The Court resolved to dismiss the case at bar, without pronouncement as to costs, as the issues had become moot and academic.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the issues in the case have become moot and academic: The Court found that the issues presented in the original action for prohibition with preliminary injunction had become moot and academic. This was primarily due to the expiration of the term of office of both the petitioner municipal mayor and the respondent provincial officials at the end of 1971. Crucially, no further action was taken by the provincial board regarding the administrative case, and the petitioner's preventive suspension during her term was never effected. Consequently, the controversy that the petition sought to resolve ceased to exist, rendering a decision on the merits unnecessary and moot. The Court's resolution to dismiss the case was a direct consequence of this finding, as it is a fundamental principle that courts do not pass upon issues that are no longer live or have lost their practical utility. On Whether the provincial board's resolutions for preventive suspension were legal: While the Court did not directly rule on the legality of the initial resolutions, the subsequent actions of the provincial board effectively rendered the issue moot. The provincial board, upon the recommendation of the vice-governor, passed a resolution on July 17, 1971, indefinitely suspending the investigation of Administrative Case No. 11. This resolution declared Resolutions Nos. 176 and 185 as functus officio. The basis for this suspension was Section 5 of Republic Act No. 5185, which prohibits administrative investigations within ninety days immediately prior to an election. This action by the provincial board, although prompted by the Decentralization Act and occurring after the petition was filed, effectively nullified the resolutions that the petitioner sought to prohibit. The subsequent expiration of terms further cemented the mootness of the legality of these initial resolutions.
Main Doctrine
The issues in an original action for prohibition with preliminary injunction become moot and academic when the term of office of the petitioner and respondents expires without further action being taken and without the preventive suspension having been effected, rendering the case dismissible.