Public office issues; exception to mootness
An issue is said to have become moot and academic when it ceases to present a
justiciable controversy so that a declaration on the issue would be of no
practical use or value.[1] The Court will therefore abstain from expressing
its opinion in a case where no legal relief is needed or called for.[2]
Nevertheless, despite mootness and despite the presence of some procedural
flaws in a petition, such as disregard of the hierarchy
of courts or the non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, the Court may deem it
necessary to address the essential issues. For example, it is in the interest of the State
that questions relating to the status and existence of a public office be
settled without delay.[3]
Nevertheless, despite mootness and despite the presence of some procedural
flaws in a petition, such as disregard of the hierarchy
of courts or the non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, the Court may deem it
necessary to address the essential issues. For example, it is in the interest of the State
that questions relating to the status and existence of a public office be
settled without delay.[3][1] Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Tuazon, Jr., 469 Phil. 79, 85-86 (2004).
[2] Korea Exchange Bank v. Gonzales, 520 Phil. 690, 701 (2006), citing Desaville, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128310, August 13, 2004, 436 SCRA 387, 391-392.
[3] Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB v. Zamora, 413 Phil. 281, 289-290 (2001); and Dario v. Mison, 257 Phil. 84, 111 (1989).