Bitangcol v. Gordon
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns an election protest filed by Gavino Bitangcol against Amelia J. Gordon for the position of City Mayor of Olongapo. The Court of First Instance of Zambales rendered a decision dismissing the protest and confirming Amelia J. Gordon's election, granting her a majority of 2,751 votes over Bitangcol. 2. Procedural History: Gavino Bitangcol initially appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance directly to the Supreme Court. However, due to the nature of the issues being factual, the Supreme Court, by resolution on February 11, 1969, directed Bitangcol to file a suit for certiorari. Subsequently, Bitangcol filed his petition for review on certiorari with the Court of Appeals. On April 23, 1969, the Court of Appeals dismissed Bitangcol's appeal for insufficiency in form. 3. The Petition: This certiorari proceeding was filed by Gavino Bitangcol with the Supreme Court, challenging the resolution of the Court of Appeals that dismissed his appeal. Bitangcol contends that he complied with the procedural requirements for perfecting an appeal. The Court of Appeals, however, found that Bitangcol failed to observe the prescribed procedure, specifically the requirement of filing a notice of appeal with the court of origin and serving a copy upon the adverse party, as stipulated in Rule 122, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, in conjunction with the Revised Election Code. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the petition as moot and academic, noting that the term of office in dispute had expired.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal for insufficiency in form. Whether the case remains justiciable despite the expiration of the term of office.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari, holding that the case was moot and academic. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals, considering that the term of office in dispute had already expired and the issues raised had lost their practical utility.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the Court of Appeals committed a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal for insufficiency in form: The Court held that it was not in a position to rule that the Court of Appeals committed a grave abuse of discretion. The facts as found by the Court of Appeals, which were not for the Supreme Court to disturb, militated against the claim of the petitioner. The Court of Appeals correctly pointed out that the petitioner failed to follow the prescribed procedure for perfecting an appeal from a Court of First Instance to the Court of Appeals, specifically by not filing a notice of appeal with the court of origin and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party, as mandated by Rule 122, Section 3 of the Rules of Court. The petitioner's claim of having complied with such procedure was denied by the private respondent. The Court also noted that the petitioner's appeal was initially filed directly with the Supreme Court, which was improper for factual issues, necessitating a subsequent transfer to the Court of Appeals. On Whether the case remains justiciable despite the expiration of the term of office: The Court ruled that the case had become moot and academic. The term of office for Mayor of Olongapo, the position disputed by the petitioner and private respondent, had expired by the time the case reached the Supreme Court. Consequently, any pronouncement by the Tribunal on the matter would serve no useful purpose and would not have any practical effect. The Court reiterated its policy not to pass upon issues that have lost their practical utility or are purely of academic interest.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari, holding that the case had become moot and academic due to the expiration of the term of office for the position of Mayor of Olongapo. The Court emphasized that it would not pass upon issues that have lost their practical utility or would serve no useful purpose, especially when the factual findings of the appellate court militated against the petitioner's claim and procedural missteps were evident.