FLORO BUENCONSEJO, PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, UNION OBRERA DE TABACO AND TITO BILANGEL, RESPONDENTS.

In a petition filed before this Court on February 26, 1964
petitioner alleged that prior to the biennial election of officers of the Union
Obrera de Tabaco on the
first Sunday of March – which in 1964 fell on March 1 – he filed his
certificate of candidacy for president thereof in accordance with the union’s
constitution and by-laws; that on February 14, 1964 the union returned to
petitioner his certificate of candidacy, advising him that he could not
participate in the forthcoming election for certain unstated reasons allegedly
already known to petitioner; that because of circulating rumors that respondent
Tito Bilangel would
control the election since he was the sole candidate for the top post, petitioner filed a charge of
unfair labor practice against the union and Bilangel
before the Court of Industrial
Relations on February 10, 1964. 
In paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the petition it is pointed out:

“8.     That after
preliminary investigation of said charge, the Acting Prosecutor of the case,
Atty. Linda Ilagan, filed a complaint for unfair
labor practice, x x x

9.       That because the
election is only a few days off, and considering the time required to hear the
main case of unfair labor practice the petitioner filed, incident to the said
unfair labor practice case, an Urgent Petition for Preliminary Injunction,
asking the respondent Court for preliminary remedy to command and/or enjoin the
respondent union to include the petitioner Floro Buenconsejo as a candidate for the presidency of the union
in the election to be held on March 1, 1964, x x x

10.     That because of the
urgency of the situation, on February 20, 1964 and again a few days later the
petitioner filed urgent motions for the immediate resolution of the incidental
case in­volving his inclusion as a candidate for March 1, 1964 election, x x x

11.     That in spite of these
urgent matters, and in spite of the fact that there are less than five (5) days
remaining before the union election involving 1,500 employees, the respondent
Court of Industrial Relations has not acted on said petition.”

Contending that the
continuous inaction of respondent court in resolving his plea thereto for an
injunction would operate to exclude him from being a candidate in the March 1,
1964 election,
petitioner brought this original action for mandamus with preliminary
injunction primarily seeking his inclusion as a candidate in said
election.  Because of the urgency of the
claim presented by petitioner, this Court issued a resolution on February
28, 1964 to this
effect:  “The respondents in L-22508
(Floro Buenconsejo vs.
The Court of Industrial Relations, et al.) are required to file, in 10 days
from notice hereof an answer to the petition for mandamus (not a motion to
dismiss).  Without bond, let preliminary
mandatory injunction issue ordering the Court of Industrial Relations to act on
the complaint (case 4052-ULP) filed on February
25, 1964, in view of the scheduled certification election on March 1, 1964.”

In their answer filed on March 24, 1964, respondents Tito Bilangel and the Union Obrera de Tabaco sought the dismissal of this petition pleading,
among others, that the question of participation of petitioner in the union
election of March 1, 1964 had become moot and academic because said election
was regularly held as scheduled even without petitioner’s participation in view
of his inability to obtain from the Court of Industrial Relations a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction with respect to his inclusion as a
candidate.  Said failure on petitioner’s
part, as alleged by respondents and not denied by petitioner, was due to the
Latter’s inability to post the required bond.

IN VIEW IF THE FOREGOING, this petition is dismissed as
moot and academic, for lack of justiciable
controversy.  No pronouncement as to
costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro,
Fernando, and Capistrano, JJ., concur.