AMANTE PURISIMA, PETITIONER, VS. HON. DEOGRACIAS S. SOLIS, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LLOCOS SUR AND GREGORIO CORDERO, RESPONDENTS.

Purisima versus Solis

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction filed by Amante Purisima against Judge Deogracias Solis of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur and against Gregorio Cordero. Purisima asked the Supreme Court to annul the trial judge's orders refusing to stop a judicial recount of ballots and refusing to use instead the untampered Commission on Elections copies of the election returns. The case matters to a reviewee because it shows the Court declining to rule on the merits of an election contest that events had overtaken, and it teaches the doctrine of mootness together with the idea that accepting another public office may amount to abandoning an electoral claim.

Procedural History

The case is an offshoot of an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in a recount case involving the same protagonists. In that earlier case the Court reversed the trial court's order of dismissal and directed Judge Salanga to proceed with the recount under Section 163 of the Revised Election Code then in force. Judge Solis, who had taken over the court, began to implement that decision. When tampering of ballot boxes was discovered, Purisima moved to stop the recount and to use the Commission on Elections copies of the returns. The respondent judge denied the motion in a resolution dated February 4, 1967, and denied reconsideration in an order dated April 6, 1967. Purisima then came to the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction. A temporary restraining order was issued, Cordero filed his answer, and the case was deemed submitted for decision.

Facts

Purisima and Gregorio Cordero were among the candidates for the three positions of Provincial Board Members of Ilocos Sur in the elections of 1963. Because of discrepancies in the election returns from forty-one precincts, Purisima filed a petition for judicial recount under Section 163 of the Revised Election Code then in force.

The Supreme Court, reversing the trial court's dismissal, directed the trial judge to proceed with the recount. When the recount began, it was discovered that in some precincts the ballot boxes and their contents showed indications that they had been tampered with. Purisima therefore moved that the recount be stopped and that the untampered Commission on Elections copies of the election returns be used to determine the votes received by the contending parties and to provide the basis for the canvass.

The respondent judge denied the motion, holding that the earlier judgment was clear and unequivocal that the recount should proceed, and that the remedy for tampering was a proper election protest. Reconsideration was denied. By the time the case reached the Supreme Court, the term of the disputed office had expired on December 30, 1967, and even before that date, on May 31, 1967, Purisima had been appointed Judge of the Court of Agrarian Relations. He nonetheless moved that a decision be rendered on the merits, saying that if declared winner he would seek service credit for the period he would have occupied the position, which credit might matter for his later retirement benefits.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for certiorari has become moot and academic because the term of the disputed office has already expired.
• Whether or not the petitioner abandoned his claim by accepting an appointment as Judge of the Court of Agrarian Relations.
• Whether or not the question of who would have succeeded the petitioner, had he been proclaimed winner, has likewise become moot.

Applicable Provisions

Section 163 of the Revised Election Code, the provision under which the recount was originally sought, is the provision identified in the decision as the basis of the petition for judicial recount. The decision refers to it by name and number but does not set out its text, so its wording is not quoted here; what the case draws from it is simply that the recount proceedings before the trial court were governed by that section of the Code then in force.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the case has become moot and academic with respect to both parties, because the term of the disputed office has already expired. There was nothing left for the Court to adjudicate: the office had ended, and any ruling on the recount could no longer affect who held it.

On the second issue, the Court held that the case has also become moot with respect to the petitioner in particular, because by his acceptance of a position in the Judiciary he has in effect abandoned his claim in the present case. The Court did not accept the petitioner's argument that a ruling on the merits was still needed for possible service credit and retirement benefits; it treated the acceptance of the judicial post as a relinquishment of the electoral claim.

On the third issue, the Court held that even the question of who would have been entitled to succeed the petitioner upon his assumption of a position as Judge, if he had succeeded in being proclaimed as the winner over respondent Cordero, has likewise become moot. The Court thus closed off the incidental questions that would have followed from a belated proclamation.

Doctrine

A case is moot and academic when the term of the disputed office has already expired, because there is no longer any live controversy for the Court to resolve. A candidate who accepts an appointment to another public office, here a judgeship, in effect abandons his pending electoral claim, and the Court will not render a decision on the merits merely to preserve a possible claim for service credit or retirement benefits. The doctrine is tied to the recount provision invoked, Section 163 of the Revised Election Code then in force, which governed the proceedings that the expiration of the term and the petitioner's abandonment had already rendered academic.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, without costs, the Court having found the case moot and academic.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that the expiration of the term of the disputed office, coupled with the petitioner's acceptance of a judicial appointment, rendered the election case moot and amounted to abandonment of his claim. Examiners use this case to test mootness in election contests and the effect of accepting another public office on a pending electoral protest.