EN BANC
[G.R. No. 258446. July 19, 2022.]
BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING CIRCLE [BPO CIRCLE] REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MARY KATHLEEN MALBAROSA-BONIFACIO, petitioner, vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution datedJULY 19, 2022, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 258446(Business Process Outsourcing Circle [BPO Circle] Represented by Its President Mary Kathleen Malbarosa-Bonifacio, Petitioner, v. Commission on Elections, Respondent.) — This is a Petition for Certiorari1 seeking reversal of the Order 2 dated 25 August 2021 and the Resolution 3 dated 10 December 2021 of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) First Division and En Banc, respectively, in SPP No. 21-102 (PL). In this regard, the COMELEC denied the petition for registration of petitioner Business Process Outsourcing Circle (BPO Circle) under the party-list system for the May 2022 Elections.
Antecedents
On 05 April 2021, BPO Circle filed with the COMELEC its petition for registration as a party-list 4 pursuant to Republic Act No. (RA) 7941. 5 BPO Circle sought registration as a sectoral organization to represent the business process outsourcing (BPO) industry with manifestation 6 of its intent to participate in the May 2022 party-list elections.
Ruling of the COMELEC First Division
In an Order dated 25 August 2021, the COMELEC First Division dismissed BPO Circle's petition for failure to comply with the mandatory requirements under Sections 6 and 7, Rule I of COMELEC Resolution No. 9366, 7 specifically:
1. The addresses of the officers are not stated;
2. The list of attachments is absent;
3. BPO Circle failed to attach its list of members showing that majority of the membership and officers belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector it seeks to represent; and
4. The Manifestation of Intent to Participate (MIP) is not in the prescribed form. 8
BPO Circle moved for reconsideration, without counsel, claiming substantial compliance with the requirements under Resolution No. 9366. 9
Thereafter, BPO Circle's counsel filed a Motion to Admit Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration with attached Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration 10 (Supplemental MR). In addition to its claim of substantial compliance, BPO Circle attached in the Supplemental MR the list of officers with addresses, 11 the list of attachments, 12 the list of members, 13 and the MIP in the prescribed form. 14
Ruling of the COMELEC En Banc
The COMELEC En Banc denied BPO Circle's motion for reconsideration in the Resolution dated 10 December 2021. 15
In rejecting BPO Circle's claim of substantial compliance, the COMELEC En Banc held that Resolution No. 9366 requires that the addresses of officers and list of attachments shall be stated in the petition itself, not as an attachment. It further ruled that the notarized affidavits cannot substitute the required list of members showing that majority of its membership belong to the BPO industry. The COMELEC En Banc then noted that out of the 15 members on record of BPO Circle, only the four (4) individuals who submitted certificates of employment have established that they belong to the BPO industry. 16
Aggrieved, petitioner filed the present petition.
BPO Circle insists that it substantially complied with the requirements under Sections 6 and 7 of Resolution No. 9366 and all the defects found by the COMELEC have already been corrected through its Supplemental MR. 17 Notably, however, the instant petition neither prayed nor alleged, at the very least, the requirements for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction.
In compliance with our Resolution 18 dated 15 February 2022, the COMELEC, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed its comment 19 denying the imputation of grave abuse of discretion on its part. It mainly argues that the dismissal of BPO Circle's petition for registration for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements under Resolution No. 9366 is sanctioned under Section 6 of RA 7941, which authorizes the refusal or cancellation of registration on the ground of violation or failure to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections. The COMELEC likewise contends that the subsequent submission of the required documents cannot be accepted since the deadline for the filing of the petitions for registration already ended. 20
Issue
The sole issue raised for consideration of the Court is whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing BPO Circle's Petition for Registration.
Ruling of the Court
The petition must be dismissed on the ground of mootness.
As a rule, this Court may only adjudicate actual, ongoing controversies. 21 The Court is not empowered to decide moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the result as to the thing in issue in the case before it. 22
A case becomes moot and academic when there is no justiciable controversy between the parties, thereby rendering the resolution of the same of no practical use or value. 23 When a case is moot and academic, this Court generally declines jurisdiction over it. 24
Here, BPO Circle prays for the inclusion of its name in the certified list of candidates and be printed in the ballots as a party-list candidate for the May 2022 Elections. The conclusion of the elections on 09 May 2022 and the proclamation of winners, however, has left the present petition bereft of any practical value. The success in this recourse would not undo the questioned action of the COMELEC.
Indeed, the Court has recognized the following exceptions to the mootness doctrine: (1) there was a grave violation of the Constitution; (2) the case involved a situation of exceptional character and was of paramount public interest; (3) the issues raised required the formulation of controlling principles to guide the Bench, the Bar and the public; and (4) the case was capable of repetition yet evading review. 25
None of the exceptions obtains in this case. It must be emphasized that the only issue raised in the petition is whether BPO Circle's alleged substantial compliance warrants the relaxation of the COMELEC rules. Clearly, this case does not involve grave violation of the Constitution or a situation of exceptional character. Neither does it require formulation of controlling principles since it is already settled that liberal application of rules is merely an exception and the Court's appreciation of substantial compliance by a party depends on the factual circumstances of each case.
Finally, for the case to fall under the last exception, two (2) elements must concur: (i) the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (ii) there was a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again. 26 In the instant case, the second element is absent since BPO Circle is expected to strictly follow the COMELEC rules should it ever decide to participate in the next elections, instead of invoking leniency in the application of said rules.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. Inting and Kho, Jr., JJ., no part. (57)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MARIFE M. LOMIBAO-CUEVASClerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 3-307.
2. Id. at 153-155; concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Ma. Rowena Amelia V. Guanzon, Commissioners Marlon S. Casquejo and Aimee P. Ferolino.
3. Id. at 297-305; concurred in by Chairperson Sheriff M. Abas and Commissioners Ma. Rowena Amelia V. Guanzon, Socorro B. Inting, Marlon S. Casquejo, Antonio T. Kho, Jr. (now a Member of this Court) and Aimee P. Ferolino.
4. Id. at 29-151.
5. Entitled "An Act Providing for the Election of Party-List Representatives Through the Party-List System, and Appropriating Funds Therefor." Approved: 03 March 1995.
6. Rollo, p. 71.
7. RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE: 1) FILING OF PETITIONS FOR REGISTRATION; 2) FILING OF MANIFESTATION OF INTENT TO PARTICIPATE; 3) SUBMISSION OF NAMES OF NOMINEES; AND 4) FILING OF DISQUALIFICATION CASES AGAINST NOMINEES OF PARTY-LIST GROUPS OR ORGANIZATIONS PARTICIPATING UNDER THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM OF REPRESENTATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE MAY 13, 2013 NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTIONS, AND SUBSEQUENT ELECTIONS THEREAFTER. Promulgated: 21 February 2012.
8. Supra, note 2.
9. Rollo, pp. 156-252.
10. Id. at 253-280.
11. Id. at 275.
12. Id. at 276.
13. Id. at 277.
14. Id. at 278-279.
15. Id. at 297-307.
16. In the Concurring Opinion of COMELEC Commissioner Marlon S. Casquejo, it was noted that all the listed members have duly attached their respective certificates of employment contrary to the findings of the ponencia; Id. at 306-307.
17. Rollo, pp. 3-21.
18. Id. at 314-315.
19. Id. at 316-331.
20. Id.
21. Pormento v. Estrada, 643 Phil. 735, 738 (2010).
22. Id.
23. Garcia v. Commission on Elections, 328 Phil. 288, 292 (1996).
24. Timbol v. Commission on Elections, 754 Phil. 578, 584-585 (2015).
25. Id.
26. Madrilejos v. Gatdula, G.R. No. 184389, 24 September 2019 citing Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 US 147 (1975).