DATU MARIGA DIRAMPATEN, PETITIONER, VS. HON. HADJI MADKI ALONTO, PERSON­ALLY AND AS PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR OF LANAO DEL SUR, THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF LANAO DEL SUR, COMPOSED OF HADJ…

Dirampaten versus Alonto

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with preliminary mandatory injunction, brought by Datu Mariga Dirampaten against Governor Hadji Madki Alonto of Lanao del Sur, the provincial board of that province, and Vice-Mayor Hadji Alimodin Sumpingan. The petitioner, mayor of Taraka, Lanao del Sur, was suspended from office by the Governor pending investigation of an administrative complaint for oppression, corruption, and maladministration, and the vice-mayor was designated acting mayor in his place. The case matters less for any doctrinal rule than for what it teaches about mootness: when supervening events strip a case of any practical relief, the Court will not decide it, and the petition is dismissed.

Procedural History

The petitioner went directly to the Supreme Court on an original petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with preliminary mandatory injunction. He asked that the suspension order be annulled, that the designation of the vice-mayor as acting mayor be declared illegal, that the provincial board be enjoined from continuing its investigation, and that he be restored to office. The Court issued the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction upon the posting of a bond of one thousand pesos. The respondents answered, traversing the material allegations and praying for dismissal and for dissolution of the writ. When the case was called for hearing, no one appeared for the petitioner, and counsel for the respondents submitted the case for decision. After the general elections of November 1967, the petitioner moved to withdraw the petition on the ground that the basic issue had been rendered moot and academic, and the Court resolved that motion.

Facts

On September 23, 1965, the respondent Governor issued Administrative Order Number 2, suspending the petitioner from office as mayor of Taraka, Lanao del Sur, effective September 24, 1965, pending investigation by the provincial board of an administrative complaint filed against him for oppression, corruption, and maladministration. On the same day, the Governor designated the respondent vice-mayor as acting mayor for the duration of the suspension.

On October 4, 1965, the petitioner came to the Supreme Court on the present petition, praying for the reliefs already described. Two days later, upon his posting a bond of one thousand pesos, the Court issued the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction prayed for. The respondents filed their answer on November 23, 1965.

In the general elections held on November 14, 1967, the petitioner was re-elected mayor of Taraka. The respondents Alonto and Sumpingan did not run for re-election. On February 2, 1968, the petitioner filed a manifestation and motion to withdraw the petition on the ground that the basic issue had already been rendered moot and academic. He later submitted a certification from the Chief of the Statistics and Election Records Division of the Commission on Elections, showing that no certificate of candidacy for Governor of Lanao del Sur was on file for Madki Alonto, that the petitioner was re-elected mayor, that a new vice-mayor had been elected, and that no certificate of candidacy for vice-mayor was on file for Alimudin Sumpingan.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition has been rendered moot and academic by the supervening circumstance that the principal respondents have ceased to hold the offices in which they were sued.
• Whether or not the petitioner's motion to withdraw the petition should be granted.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote or construe any statutory provision; it rests on the procedural doctrine of mootness. The petitioner invoked section 2188 of the Revised Administrative Code, requiring the Governor to first conduct an investigation of the charges, but the Court did not reach that question because the case had become moot.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the certification implies that the principal respondents Alonto and Sumpingan have ceased to hold their positions as Governor of Lanao del Sur and vice-mayor of Taraka, respectively, in which capacities they were made respondents. This supervening circumstance has rendered the petition moot and academic for all practical purposes. Having ceased as Governor, the respondent Alonto cannot anymore be bound by a decision of the Court in the present case. With respect to the respondent Sumpingan, the threat of his assuming the position of mayor vanished with the end of his term as vice-mayor and his failure to seek re-election. Considering the present conditions of the parties, particularly the principal respondents, an eventual resolution of the petition will serve no useful purpose.

On the second issue, the Court noted in passing that the petitioner himself seeks the withdrawal of his petition, and that if anyone will be prejudiced by the withdrawal, it will be the petitioner, who will be reverted, at least theoretically, to the situation he was in prior to the issuance of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. The Court accordingly granted the motion to withdraw.

Doctrine

A case is moot and academic when a supervening event renders it of no practical use or value, so that an eventual resolution will serve no useful purpose. Where the respondents have ceased to hold the offices in which they were sued, they can no longer be bound by any judgment, and the threat complained of has vanished with the end of their terms. The Court will not decide a moot case, and where the petitioner himself seeks to withdraw and bears the prejudice of withdrawal, the motion is granted.

Disposition

The Court granted the petitioner's motion to withdraw the petition, the case having been rendered moot and academic.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a supervening circumstance rendering a petition moot and academic for all practical purposes leaves no useful purpose for the Court to serve. Examiners use this case to test mootness, the effect of the expiration of terms of public respondents, and the withdrawal of petitions by the petitioner himself.