FIDELINO C. AGAWIN, PETITIONER, VS. QUINTIN CABRERA AND HON. ARSENIO ÑAÑAWA, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LAGUNA, BRANCH IV, RESPONDENTS.

Agawin versus Cabrera

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari filed by Fidelino Agawin against Quintin Cabrera and the judge of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, Branch IV. Agawin lost the mayoralty race of Pagsanjan, Laguna and filed an election protest, which the trial court dismissed on the ground that his certificate of candidacy had been filed in the wrong office. Agawin came to the Supreme Court claiming grave abuse of discretion. The case matters because it shows what happens when the term of office being contested has already expired while the protest is still pending: the Court will not render a decision that can serve no practical purpose.

Procedural History

Agawin filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance of Laguna, Branch IV, and later amended the protest. After the revision of ballots was completed, Cabrera moved to dismiss on the grounds that the protest was filed beyond the reglementary period and that the certificate of candidacy had been filed in the wrong office. On July 11, 1964, the respondent judge ruled that the certificate of candidacy was filed with the wrong body and dismissed the protest, with costs against the protestant. Agawin's motion for reconsideration was denied. Claiming grave abuse of discretion, Agawin then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Facts

In the elections of November 12, 1963, Fidelino Agawin, the Nacionalista Party candidate, and Quintin Cabrera, the Liberal Party candidate, contested the mayoralty post of Pagsanjan, Laguna. Cabrera was proclaimed the winner on November 14, 1963.

Agawin protested, alleging frauds, corrupt practices, overspending, vote buying, and other illegal election practices. Cabrera answered and asserted a counter protest. Upon the respondent judge's order, a revision of ballots was made and completed.

Cabrera then moved to dismiss, alleging that the protest was filed beyond the reglementary period and that the protestant's certificate of candidacy had been filed in the wrong office. The trial court agreed that the certificate was filed with the wrong body and dismissed the protest. Meanwhile, in the November 1967 elections, Agawin and Cabrera again faced each other for the same position; Cabrera won, and Agawin again protested.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the election protest on the ground that the certificate of candidacy was filed in the wrong office.
• Whether or not the Supreme Court may still render a decision in the case given that the contested term of office has already expired.

Applicable Provisions

Section 36, paragraph (c) of the Revised Election Code, as referred to in the decision, governs where a certificate of candidacy is filed:

The protestant filed his certificate of candidacy with the Commission on Elections instead of filing it with the municipal secretary as directed by Section 36, paragraph (c) of the Revised Election Code.

This provision bears on the case because the trial court dismissed the protest precisely on the ground that the certificate was filed with the Commission on Elections rather than the municipal secretary.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court did not reach the merits of the claim of grave abuse of discretion. It noted that the contested term of office in the case at bar, covering the years 1964 to 1967, had already expired.

On the second issue, the Court held that any decision now can no longer be given any practical effect. Because the term had lapsed, a ruling on the validity of the dismissal would be an academic exercise. The Court cited its prior rulings in Gonzaga versus Bico and in the Tuanda versus Dionaldo resolution to support this course.

Doctrine

An election protest that has been rendered moot by the expiration of the contested term of office will be dismissed, because any decision can no longer be given any practical effect. A Bar candidate should retain that mootness in election cases is measured by the life of the term, not by the persistence of the parties' quarrel. Where the term has expired, the Court will not resolve the merits, even where grave abuse of discretion is alleged, and the case is dismissed without costs.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, without costs. Cabrera prevailed, and the Court ordered no further relief because the contested term had expired.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that when the contested term of office has expired, any decision can no longer be given any practical effect, so the petition is dismissed. Examiners use this case to test mootness in election protests and to remind candidates that a pending protest dies with the term it challenges.