Maguindanao del Norte v. Bureau of Local Government Finance
REVERSALFacts
The Antecedents: Republic Act No. 11550, signed May 27, 2021, divided Maguindanao into Maguindanao del Norte and del Sur, effective upon plebiscite within 90 days, supervised by COMELEC; COMELEC deferred plebiscite post-2022 National and Local Elections (NLE), leading Maguindanao to elect officials including Vice Governor Fatima Ainee L. Sinsuat and Sangguniang member Datu Sharifudin Tucao P. Mastura. Plebiscite held September 17, 2022, ratified RA 11550 overwhelmingly; under Section 50, Sinsuat and Mastura assumed as Governor and Vice Governor of Maguindanao del Norte. December 20, 2022, Sinsuat requested BLGF Region XII designate Badorie M. Alonzo as concurrent Provincial Treasurer per Section 51. February 1, 2023, BLGF Region XII sought guidance from Central Office and BARMM MILG, arguing Section 50 inapplicable post-2022 NLE. April 4, 2023, President appointed Abdulraof Macacua as OIC Governor (oath April 5); April 24, MILG recognized Macacua; April 26, President appointed Macacua Governor and Sinsuat Vice Governor (oaths April 28), with Sinsuat assuming Vice Governor duties. BLGF designated Zaira E. Ala as Acting Treasurer per Sinsuat's recommendation May 11, 2023. Procedural History: Petitioner filed Petition for Mandamus with preliminary mandatory injunction April 2023 to compel BLGF process Alonzo's designation; Court issued Writ April 19, 2023; June 26, 2023 Decision granted mandamus, made writ permanent, affirming Sinsuat's clear right as Acting Governor under RA 11550 Section 50 to recommend Treasurer. OSG (for BLGF) filed Omnibus Motion August 29, 2023 seeking reversal, En Banc referral, oral arguments, citing mootness from Sinsuat's Vice Governor acceptance; MILG Motion for Reconsideration September 12, 2023 echoed; Petitioner Motion to Cite Indirect Contempt August 18, 2023 against MILG, Macacua, others for defying Decision. The Petition: Petitioner argued BLGF unlawfully refused to process Treasurer designation despite Sinsuat's authority under RA 11550 Sections 50-51; respondents countered Section 50 inoperable post-2022 NLE, presidential power applies, Sinsuat lacked recommendatory authority (insufficient eligibles). OSG/MILG post-Decision: Sinsuat abandoned Governor claim by accepting Vice Governor, mooting case; no mandamus right amid doubt from Macacua's appointment. Petitioner countered via contempt motion: respondents disobeyed by recognizing Macacua, obstructing justice.
Issue(s)
Whether Sinsuat abandoned her claim to Governor by accepting Vice Governor appointment. Whether mandamus proper amid supervening appointments rendering case moot. Whether Motion for Indirect Contempt prospers.
Ruling
Omnibus Motion and MILG Reconsideration partly granted: June 26, 2023 Decision reversed, Petition dismissed as moot, writs dissolved; no En Banc/oral arguments; Contempt Motion denied; Sinsuat ordered to show cause for non-disclosure.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 (Abandonment): Abandonment requires (1) intention and (2) overt acts; Sinsuat manifested intention via silence on Macacua's OIC (April 4/11) and Governor (April 26/28) appointments despite opportunity to litigate, ceasing gubernatorial functions post-Macacua assumption until June 26 Decision, and presumable non-collection of salary. Overt acts: accepted Vice Governor appointment (incompatible with Governor), oath before President April 28 (deliberate), assumed duties while Macacua governed; per Sangguniang Bayan of San Andres v. CA (348 Phil. 303), similar inaction/acceptance constitutes abandonment without formal resignation. Court took judicial notice (Rule 129, Sec. 1) of presidential acts; no repossession possible post-abandonment. Total circumstances compel finding despite prior RA 11550 Section 50 validity. On Issue 2 (Mootness/Mandamus): Case moot as controversy (Sinsuat's right to recommend Treasurer via Governor title) ceased via abandonment/supervening events (presidential appointments Art. VII Sec. 16 filling vacuum); no practical value in ruling, per Land Bank v. Fastech (816 Phil. 422), judicial power limits to actual controversies (Art. VIII Sec. 1). Parallels Defensor-Santiago v. Ramos (P.E.T. 001): assuming inferior office abandons superior claim, mooting protest. No exceptions (Oclarino v. Navarro, 863 Phil. 949): no grave violations, unique facts (delayed plebiscite), province operational. Even on merits, no clear right (Sanson v. Barrios, 63 Phil. 198) due to Macacua's colorable title casting doubt; mandamus requisites fail (Del Rosario v. Shaikh, 867 Phil. 731). Reverses prior Decision as circumstances changed. On Issue 3 (Contempt): Motion infirm: indirect contempt requires verified petition (Rule 71 Sec. 4), not motion (Ladano v. Neri, 698 Phil. 354); criminal nature demands charge, hearing. Merits fail: Decision only incidental to Treasurer processing, not absolute gubernatorial fiat; no disobedience as moot. Collateral attack on Macacua's title improper (quo warranto proper per Nacionalista Party v. De Vera, 85 Phil. 127; Republic v. Sereno, 833 Phil. 449); power exercised sparingly (Britania v. Gepty, 869 Phil. 386).
Main Doctrine
Abandonment of a public office is a voluntary relinquishment thereof by the holder with intent to terminate possession and control, requiring both (1) intention to abandon and (2) overt external acts carrying such intention into effect; it equates to resignation without formal notice and bars repossession even by force. In this case, Sinsuat manifested intention through silence on Macacua's appointments, ceasing to discharge gubernatorial functions, and failing to object or litigate promptly, while overt acts included accepting Vice Governor appointment, oath-taking before the President, and assuming duties thereunder, rendering her claim to Governor abandoned despite prior assumption under RA 11550, Section 50. Consequently, supervening presidential appointments under Article VII, Section 16, Constitution, filled the vacuum, mooting the mandamus petition as no clear legal right remained enforceable. Mandamus requires a clear, certain legal right, ministerial duty, unlawful neglect, and no other remedy; doubt from competing titles precludes issuance. Indirect contempt proceedings demand strict procedure via verified petition (not mere motion), and cannot collaterally attack colorable public office titles, which require quo warranto.