This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-06-25 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Thus, when petitioner filed her certificate of candidacy on March 29, 2007, such act produced legal effects, and the withdrawal of the same, despite the approval of the Comelec, did not bar or render nugatory the legal proceedings it had set in motion. As such, the Comelec did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it ruled on the merits of the petition despite the withdrawal of petitioner's certificate of candidacy. The Comelec correctly held that a case only becomes moot when "there is no more actual controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits."[15] In the instant case, although petitioner withdrew her first certificate of candidacy, the subsequent disqualification of her husband required that she file a new certificate of candidacy as a substitute candidate. The second filing of a certificate of candidacy thus once again put her qualifications in issue. Hence, a ruling upon the same is necessary. | |||||
|
2004-06-15 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In the recent case of Enrile vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal,[20] we ruled that a case becomes moot and academic when there is no more actual controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits. Worth reiterating is our pronouncement in Gancho-on vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment, thus:[21] | |||||