Ticzon v. Fule
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerned the authority of the City Mayor of San Pablo City to temporarily assign a subordinate within the City Treasurer's office. Specifically, the Mayor issued an order directing the City Treasurer to assign a particular individual as a slaughterhouse guard and collector pending the return or final determination of the status of the incumbent. Procedural History: The City Treasurer defied the Mayor's order, leading to a lawsuit filed by the Mayor. The Court of First Instance of Laguna ruled in favor of the Mayor, commanding the Treasurer to comply with the order. The City Treasurer then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The appeal was filed by the City Treasurer, challenging the Mayor's power under the city charter to exercise immediate control over executive and administrative functions, versus the Treasurer's power over the finance department. However, during the pendency of the appeal, both the Mayor and the City Treasurer retired from their respective offices, and the individuals involved in the original assignment dispute had also changed. The appellant subsequently moved to dismiss the appeal as moot, which the Supreme Court granted.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal has become moot and academic. Whether the respondent-appellant complied with the procedural requirements of the Supreme Court.
Ruling
The appeal was dismissed. The Court found that the case had become moot and academic because the parties involved had ceased to hold their respective offices and the subject matter of the dispute had been resolved by subsequent events. The Court also noted the failure of the appellant to comply with the resolution requiring the submission of the lower court's decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the appeal has become moot and academic: The Supreme Court held that the appeal had become moot and academic. The resolution noted that the petitioner-appellee, Mayor Zacarias A. Ticzon, had ceased to hold office as his term expired years ago. Similarly, the respondent-appellant, City Treasurer Serafin C. Fule, retired from the service in 1974. Furthermore, the factual circumstances that gave rise to the dispute had also changed significantly. The incumbent slaughterhouse guard and collector, Manuel Mendoza, had resigned, and the position was occupied by Eufrocino Limdico. Oscar Baldovino, the person designated by the city treasurer in defiance of the mayor's order, had also retired. These developments rendered the original issue of who had the authority to assign the position moot. On Whether the respondent-appellant complied with the procedural requirements of the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court pointed out that the respondent-appellant failed to comply with a resolution requiring him to submit twenty printed copies of the lower court's decision, which should have been included as an appendix to his brief. Instead of complying, the appellant filed a manifestation stating that he was no longer desirous of prosecuting his appeal because it had become moot and prayed for its dismissal. This failure to adhere to the Court's procedural directives further supported the dismissal of the appeal.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because the case had become moot and academic. Both the petitioner-appellee (City Mayor) and the respondent-appellant (City Treasurer) had ceased to hold their respective offices due to the expiration of terms and retirement. Furthermore, the subject matter of the dispute, the temporary assignment of a slaughterhouse guard and collector, had also been resolved by the resignation of the incumbent and the retirement of the person who defied the mayor's order, with a new occupant in the position. The Court also noted the appellant's failure to comply with procedural requirements, such as submitting the lower court's decision.