ABELARDO SUBIDO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SERVICE, PETITIONER, VS. JOVITO SALONGA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN, SENATE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE, AND FRANCISCO …

Subido versus Salonga

The Case

This is Subido versus Salonga, a special civil action for prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction. Abelardo Subido, in his capacity as Commissioner of Civil Service, sued Jovito Salonga, in his capacity as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Civil Service, and Francisco, in his capacity as Chairman of the Senate Ad Hoc Blue Ribbon Committee. Subido sought to stop the respondent Senators from continuing to hear administrative charges that had been filed against him, and to compel them to return the records they had taken in the course of their investigation. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's clean statement of the mootness principle: courts exist to decide actual controversies, not hypothetical ones, and when events have stripped a case of any practical effect, the petition must be dismissed.

Procedural History

The petition was filed on the twenty ninth of September 1967, an original action in the Supreme Court. On the third of October 1967, the Court gave due course to the petition and required the respondents to answer, which they did on the twenty seventh of October 1967. Before the case could be considered on the merits, however, the Court noted that the petitioner had ceased to be Commissioner of Civil Service, and that the official positions of the respondents had ceased to exist upon the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution on the seventeenth of January 1973, because the Senate had been abolished and legislative power had been vested in the National Assembly. The Court therefore resolved the case on the threshold question of mootness rather than on the merits.

Facts

Atty. Faustino F. Tugade filed administrative charges against Subido, the Commissioner of Civil Service. Those charges were already being heard by an Investigating Committee created by the President of the Philippines, who had direct disciplinary jurisdiction over the Commissioner.

Notwithstanding that pending proceeding, the respondent Senators, sitting as the Senate Committee on Civil Service and the Senate Ad Hoc Blue Ribbon Committee, proceeded to investigate the same administrative charges. Subido went to the Supreme Court on the twenty ninth of September 1967, asking that the Senators be enjoined from continuing their hearing and be commanded to return the records they had taken.

While the case was pending, the 1973 Constitution took effect on the seventeenth of January 1973. Subido ceased to be Commissioner of Civil Service, and the Senate was abolished, so the official positions of the respondent Senators ceased to exist. The controversy, the Court observed, had lost its life.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent Senators, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Civil Service and Chairman of the Senate Ad Hoc Blue Ribbon Committee, could continue the investigation of the administrative charges against the petitioner, the Commissioner of Civil Service, when those charges were already being heard by an Investigating Committee created by the President, who had direct disciplinary jurisdiction over him.
• Whether or not the case had become moot by reason of the change in circumstances of the parties, such that any judgment on the merits could have no practical effect.

Applicable Provisions

The Court cited Article Eight of the 1973 Constitution on the vesting of legislative power, which bears on the case because it abolished the Senate and thereby extinguished the offices of the respondent Senators:

Article VIII, 1973 Constitution.

The decision refers to this provision in explaining that the Senate of the Philippines had been abolished and the legislative power vested in the National Assembly, which is the change of circumstance that rendered the petition moot.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court did not reach the merits. It held that, before the case could be considered on the merits, the petitioner had ceased to be Commissioner of Civil Service, and the official positions of the respondents had ceased to exist upon the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution, since the Senate had been abolished and legislative power vested in the National Assembly.

On the second issue, the Court held that the case had become moot. Any judgment that might be rendered on the merits could not have any practical effect. The Court stated the governing principle in these words:

Courts exist to decide actual controversies, not mere hypothetical cases.

It elaborated that the controversy must be definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of the parties having adverse legal interests, and must be a real and substantial controversy, admitting of specific relief through a judgment of a conclusive character. That was no longer true in the case at bar.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain the mootness rule as the Court phrased it: courts exist to decide actual controversies, not mere hypothetical cases. A controversy must be definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests, and it must be a real and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a judgment of a conclusive character. When supervening events, such as the abolition of the office of a party or the effectivity of a new Constitution abolishing the body whose action is challenged, render any judgment without practical effect, the petition is dismissed for being moot. The doctrine is tied to the Court's reading of Article Eight of the 1973 Constitution, which abolished the Senate and vested legislative power in the National Assembly, thereby extinguishing the respondents' offices.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed for being moot, without pronouncement as to costs.

Remember This

Memorize the line: courts exist to decide actual controversies, not mere hypothetical cases. Examiners use this case to test mootness arising from supervening events, such as the abolition of an office or of the body whose proceedings are challenged, and to test the requirement of a definite and concrete controversy.