JOSE M. YORAC, PETITIONER, VS. LUIS F. MAGALONA, RESPONDENT.

This is a petition filed by Jose M. Yorac to review the decision of
the Court of Appeals, reversing that of the Court of First Instance of
Negros Occidental, and declaring therein protestee-appellant (herein
respondent) Luis F. Magalona, the elected mayor of Saravia, Negros
Occidental in the general elections held on November 10, 1955.

After the petition was duly admitted and given due course, and the
parties had filed their respective briefs, the case was considered
submitted for decision on March 7, 1960.

On May 16, 1961, respondent Magalona moved for the dismissal of this
appeal on the ground that it has already become moot, the case being an
election protest involving the office of municipal mayor in connection
with the elections of November, 1955, the term of which had expired in
December, 1959.

Petitioner filed an opposition contending that the issue presented
before this Court are very important and novel that they necessitate a
ruling which would add to our electoral jurisprudence; that the parties
having already filed their respective briefs, the appeal should not be
dismissed; and that the dismissal of the appeal before a decision could
be rendered by this Court would leave “no decision in this case,
because said decision appealed from was already vacated upon perfection
of this appeal.” We find the opposition without merit.

The issues raised in the appeal mainly refer to appreciation of
ballots and the question of law involved is unsubstantial that no
useful purpose will be served by deciding the case on the merits at
this stage or at the time the case was submitted for decision on March
7, 1960, considering that even then the term of the office subject of
this appeal had already expired. And, while it is true that the
perfection of an appeal technically operates to vacate the judgment
appealed from, the dismissal of the appeal before it is finally decided
by the appellate court does not result in the total deletion or wiping
out of the judgment of the court a quo. On the contrary, by
specific provision of the Rules of Court, the decision of the lower
court shall stand as though no appeal had ever been taken, and become
enforceable. (Sec. 2, Rule 52.)

As the dismissal of the appeal after the briefs are filed rests upon the discretion of the court^[1]
and, as heretofore pointed out, there would be no practical value that
a decision on the merits be made in this case, the present appeal is
hereby dismissed for being moot, without costs in this instance. So
ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, De Leon, and Natividad, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] See Krivenko vs. Register of Deeds, 79 Phil., 461.