Mendoza v. Familara
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Constancio F. Mendoza served as Barangay Captain of Barangay Balatasan, Oriental Mindoro, for three consecutive terms, elected on May 9, 1994, May 12, 1997, and July 15, 2002. In the October 29, 2007 Barangay Elections, Mendoza again filed a certificate of candidacy for the same position. Respondent Senen C. Familara filed a petition to disqualify Mendoza, arguing that Mendoza was ineligible to run for a fourth consecutive term due to the three-consecutive term limit imposed by Republic Act No. 9164. Procedural History: Familara's petition for disqualification was initially handled by the COMELEC Assistant Regional Election Director, who recommended that action be taken against Mendoza. Subsequently, Mendoza's rival, Thomas Pajanel, filed a quo warranto and mandamus petition before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), which disqualified Mendoza. Mendoza appealed this MCTC decision. Meanwhile, the COMELEC First Division issued a resolution agreeing with the disqualification recommendation, annulling Mendoza's proclamation. Mendoza then filed a motion to recall this resolution before the COMELEC En Banc, which was denied. The COMELEC En Banc affirmed the First Division's resolution, holding that the disqualification case should proceed despite the pending appeal of the quo warranto case. The Petition: Mendoza filed the instant petition before the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC En Banc in its resolution denying his motion to recall. He argued that the disqualification case should have been dismissed or consolidated with the quo warranto case. Crucially, Mendoza challenged the constitutionality of the retroactive application of the three-consecutive term limit rule to the 1994 Barangay Elections and asserted denial of due process. The Supreme Court, however, found the petition moot and academic due to the subsequent 2010 Barangay Elections and affirmed the COMELEC's stance that the three-consecutive term limit rule was not retroactively applied but had been consistently in place since earlier laws.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition is moot and academic due to the conduct of the October 2010 Barangay Elections. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the disqualification of Mendoza. Whether the three-consecutive term limit rule under RA No. 9164, as applied to barangay officials, has retroactive application to elections prior to its enactment. Whether Mendoza was denied due process.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Resolutions of the COMELEC dated September 18, 2008, and December 23, 2009, in SPA (Brgy.) 07-243 are affirmed. The case is rendered moot and academic by the conduct of the October 2010 Barangay Elections.
Ratio Decidendi
On the mootness of the petition: The Court held that the petition was rendered moot and academic by the conduct of the October 2010 Barangay Elections. The term of office for which Mendoza was elected in 2007 had long expired. A moot and academic case ceases to present a justiciable controversy, and a declaration thereon would have no practical value. The Court reiterated that it generally declines jurisdiction over such cases unless specific exceptions apply, none of which were present in this instance. The Court cited its ruling in Mendoza v. Mayor Villas to emphasize that supervening events rendering a case moot and academic warrant dismissal, as any judgment can no longer be legally enforced. On the COMELEC's alleged grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC. The COMELEC followed the prescribed procedures for disqualification cases, including the issuance of summons and affording Mendoza an opportunity to answer. Mendoza's failure to file an answer within the reglementary period resulted in his waiver of the right to present evidence, a consequence he cannot now use to claim denial of due process. The COMELEC's decision to proceed with the disqualification case despite the pendency of the quo warranto case was consistent with jurisprudence, which mandates that disqualification cases should be resolved to prevent candidates from employing delaying tactics. On the constitutionality and application of the three-consecutive term limit rule: The Court reiterated its ruling in COMELEC v. Cruz, settling the constitutionality of the three-consecutive term limit rule. The Court clarified that there was no retroactive application of the rule under RA No. 9164. The three-term limit had been consistently imposed since RA No. 6679 (1988) and was integrated into Section 43 of the Local Government Code (LGC). The Court explained that Section 43 of the LGC, particularly the term limitation provision in Section 43(b), applies to all local elective officials without exception, including barangay officials, unless clearly provided otherwise. Therefore, the rule was already in effect and did not retroactively apply to elections prior to 1994. On the denial of due process: The Court found no denial of due process. Mendoza was duly notified of the petition for disqualification and was furnished with summons, which he received. He was given the opportunity to answer the allegations within the prescribed period. His failure to do so constituted a waiver of his right to present evidence and to be heard on the merits of his defense. The Court emphasized that due process does not require a hearing if the party has been afforded an opportunity to be heard and has failed to avail of it.
Main Doctrine
A case involving the disqualification of a barangay official for violating the three-consecutive term limit becomes moot and academic with the conduct of subsequent barangay elections, rendering any declaration of the Court of no practical legal effect, unless exceptions like grave constitutional violation or paramount public interest apply. The three-consecutive term limit rule, as integrated in the Local Government Code, does not have retroactive application to elections prior to its enactment.