Abbu v. Teves
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the petitioner's claim to be a duly elected councilor of Mambajao. The petitioner was allegedly expelled from his position by the Municipal Council of Mambajao, a resolution subsequently approved by the Provincial Board of Camiguin. Following this expulsion, another individual was appointed to the petitioner's position. 2. Procedural History: The petitioner initiated a suit for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Camiguin, seeking recognition as a councilor and the ability to perform his duties. The respondent Judge dismissed this suit, ruling that it was essentially a quo warranto action that should have been filed within the statutory one-year period from ouster. The petitioner contended that the Office of the President had declared his expulsion illegal and void ab initio, thereby justifying the mandamus action. 3. The Petition: This petition for certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court on April 12, 1971, assailing the September 23, 1970, order of the respondent Judge. The petitioner argues that the lower court erred in dismissing his mandamus suit. However, the Supreme Court noted that the petitioner's term of office expired on December 31, 1971, rendering the petition moot and academic, consistent with established jurisprudence on cases involving expired terms of office.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for mandamus has become moot and academic. Whether the suit was one for quo warranto that had prescribed.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for being moot and academic.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of mootness: The Court held that the petition for mandamus had become moot and academic. The petitioner's term of office as councilor expired on December 31, 1971, rendering the issue of his recognition and right to assume office moot. The Court cited the principle established in Gonzaga v. Bico and subsequent cases, which held that when the term of office in question has already expired, the case becomes academic. On the nature of the suit: While the respondent Judge ruled that the suit was one for quo warranto, the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to delve into this matter extensively because the case had already become moot and academic due to the expiration of the petitioner's term. The primary reason for dismissal was the supervening event of the term's expiration, which rendered the original dispute irrelevant.
Main Doctrine
A petition for mandamus to compel recognition of a councilor's right to assume office, filed after the expiration of the term of office, has become moot and academic.