EN BANC
[G.R. No. 203673. September 17, 2013.]
COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ALAY BUHAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION, INC., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated September 17, 2013, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 203673 (Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines, Inc. v. Commission on Elections and Alay Buhay Community Development Foundation, Inc.) — We decide a Petition 1 that was filed by the Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines (Senior Citizens) questioning the Commission on Elections En Banc's authority to issue Resolution 12-0859. 2 Resolution 12-0859 proclaimed respondent Alay Buhay Community Development Foundation, Inc. (Alay Buhay) as a winning party-list group entitled to one seat in Congress. Senior Citizens claims it is the one entitled to the seat left vacant by disqualified party-list, Alliance for Barangay Concerns. 3
First, the end of the May 2013 elections rendered this Petition moot and academic. AcTHCE
"A moot and academic case ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that any declaration thereon would be of no practical value." 4 Thus, in the absence of actual justiciable controversies or disputes, this Court generally opts to refrain from deciding moot issues or to dismiss petitions on this ground. 5 This was discussed in Republic Telecommunications Holdings, Inc. v. Santiago: 6
The rule is well-settled that for a court to exercise its power of adjudication, there must be an actual case or controversy — one which involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution; the case must not be moot or academic or based on extra-legal or other similar considerations not cognizable by a court of justice. Where the issue has become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, and an adjudication thereon would be of no practical use or value as courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest, however intellectually challenging. 7
The rule of mootness allows exceptions: (1) when there is grave violation of the Constitution; (2) when the case involves a situation of exceptional character and is of paramount public interest; (3) when the constitutional issue raised requires the formulation of controlling principles to guide the Bench, the Bar, and the public; and (4) when the case is capable of repetition, yet evading review. 8 None of these exceptions are present in this case. ATHCDa
The proclamation of Alay Buhay on October 2, 2012 as a winning party-list signified that it had only a few months to serve in the House of Representatives. Moreover, the term of office of the winning party-lists in the May 2010 national elections had in all practicality ended with the May 13, 2013 elections and the proclamation of new party-list winners. The three (3)-year term of sitting representatives of the 15th Congress officially ended on June 30, 2013. This Court has previously held that the expiration of the challenged term of office renders the corresponding Petition moot and academic. 9 Therefore, any ruling on the issues raised by Senior Citizens would be of no useful value. 10
Second, Senior Citizens is not the proper party to institute this case. It is not the real party in interest.
A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. 11 Rule 3, Section 2 of the Rules of Court provides that every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest, unless otherwise authorized by law or by the Rules.
Senior Citizens admitted that there is a "party internal squabble" 12 between factions of the party. One faction is headed by the proclaimed first nominee, Representative Godofredo Arquiza, while the other faction is headed by Mr. Francisco G. Datol, Jr. The present petition was filed by Plutarco E. Vasquez who belongs to the faction headed by Mr. Datol, Jr. 13
Petitioner Vasquez's faction allegedly committed fraud by falsifying a board resolution amending the Articles of Incorporation and by trying to change the name of the party-list group in contravention of the rules and law. 14 The Records of the Commission on Elections 15 and Securities and Exchange Commission, 16 which resolved issues between the Senior Citizens factions, convinced this Court that serious doubts exist on whether Senior Citizens, as represented by Mr. Vasquez, is the proper party to file this Petition. HSaCcE
Senior Citizens failed to establish that it is a recognized representative of the Senior Citizens party-list registered with the Commission on Elections that won the two seats in the 2010 party-list elections. Consequently, it failed to show it has a direct, substantial, and material interest in the case. 17
Thus, this Court resolves to DISMISS the Petition." (Sereno, C.J. and Villarama, Jr., J., on leave; Peralta and Bersamin, JJ., on official leave.) (50)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) ENRIQUE E. VIDALClerk of Court
Footnotes
1.This Petition was filed under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
2.Rollo, pp. 36-62. This is an Excerpt from the Minutes of the Regular En Banc Meeting of the Commission on Elections Held on October 2, 2012 (Resolution 12-0859).
3.This would make a total of three seats won by Senior Citizen Party-List in the May 2010 elections.
4.See Gunsi, Sr. v. Commissioners, The Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 168792, February 23, 2009, 580 SCRA 70, 76. See also Mendoza v. Villas, G.R. No. 187256, February 23, 2011, 644 SCRA 347.
5.Suplico v. National Economic and Development Authority, G.R. No. 178830, July 14, 2008, 558 SCRA 329, 354; See CONSTITUTION, Art. VIII, Sec. 1. See also Gunsi, Sr. v. Commissioners, The Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 168792, February 23, 2009, 580 SCRA 70.
6.G.R. No. 140338, August 7, 2007, 529 SCRA 232.
7.Id. at 242-243.
8.Funa v. Acting Secretary of Justice Agra, G.R. No. 191644, February 19, 2013, 691 SCRA 196.
9.ABAKADA Guro Party List, et al. v. Dela Cruz, et al., G.R. No. 191583, April 17, 2012 citing Malaluan v. COMELEC, 324 Phil. 676, 683 (1996); Sales v. COMELEC, 559 Phil. 593 (2007); and Baldo, Jr. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 176135, June 16, 2009, 589 SCRA 306.
10.Quiño, et al. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 197466, November 13, 2012, 685 SCRA 371; See also Enrile v. Senate Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 132986, May 19, 2004, 428 SCRA 472 and Gancho-on v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 108033, April 14, 1997, 271 SCRA 204, 207-208.
11.RULES OF COURT, Rule 3, Sec. 2.
12.Rollo, p. 259.
13.Id.
14.Id. at 377.
15.Rollo, p. 389. The Second Division of the Commission on Elections denied on September 13, 2011 the Petition to amend the party-list name and acronym of the Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines, Inc. (Senior Citizen Party-list), represented by its Corporate Secretary, Charlito G. Cariño (SPP No. 11-003 [PL]).
16.Rollo, p. 399. This is regarding the Cancellation of the Amended Articles of Incorporation of Allied Coalition of Association of Senior Citizens in the Phils. (Senior Citizens), Inc., Securities and Exchange Commission En Banc Case No. 07-12-264 (SEC CRMD Case No. 12-289).
17.See RULES OF COURT, Rule 3, Sec. 2; See also Villarosa v. COMELEC, 377 Phil. 497, 505 (1999). This case cited Commission on Elections Rules of Procedure, Rule 5, Sec. 3 which requires that all actions filed with the Commission should be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party in interest. See also Sumalo v. Litton, 532 Phil. 86 (2006) for its discussion on real party in interest.