Case Digest (G.R. No. L-20509)
Facts:
- The case is Lesme Baquilod, et al. vs. The Hon. Marcelo M. Bobadilla, et al. (G.R. No. L-20509).
- Decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on March 24, 1965.
- Originated from an election protest regarding municipal councilor positions in Borongan, Samar.
- The elections in question were held in November 1959 for terms expiring in 1963.
- By the time the Supreme Court reviewed the case, new elections had occurred in November 1963.
- On November 17, 1964, the Supreme Court issued a resolution asking both parties to explain why the case should not be dismissed due to the new elections.
- The deadline for response passed without action from either party, suggesting their agreement to dismiss the case.
- The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the case, stating that the issues from the 1959 elections had become academic.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court dismissed the case without costs, citing mootness due to the new elections in 1963.
- The Court determined that both parties acqui...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The decision was based on the principle of mootness, which prevents courts from deciding cases with irrelevant or academic issues.
- The new elections in 1963 rendered t...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-20509)
Facts:
The case of Lesme Baquilod, et al. vs. The Hon. Marcelo M. Bobadilla, et al. (G.R. No. L-20509) was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on March 24, 1965. The case originated from an election protest concerning the municipal councilor positions in Borongan, Samar, following the elections held in November 1959. The petitioners, Lesme Baquilod and others, contested the results of the 1959 elections, which were intended to fill the councilor positions for a term that expired in 1963. However, by the time the Supreme Court addressed the case, new elections had already taken place in November 1963, rendering the original issues moot. On November 17, 1964, the Supreme Court issued a minute resolution requiring both parties to show cause within ten days why the case should not be dismissed, given the lapse of time and the occurrence of new elections. The period for response expired without any action from either party, indicating their a...