G.R. No. L-38415 - Nunez vs. Averia

Petitioner Constantino A. Nunez filed an election protest in Election Case No. TM-470 before a respondent court.
The protest contested the November 8, 1971 election results in select precincts for the mayoralty of Tarnate, Cavite on grounds of fraud, irregularities, and corrupt practices.

Petitioner: Constantino A. Nunez, the protestant challenging the election results.
Original Protestee: Edgardo H. Morales, who was proclaimed mayor-elect, but was later ambushed and killed on February 15, 1974, in a barrio of Tarnate.
Substituted Protestee/Respondent: Rodolfo de Leon, then vice-mayor who succeeded Morales, now acting as the incumbent mayor and party respondent.
Additional Respondents: Hon. Alberto V. Averia and the original protestee (Morales) as represented by his substitution.

The respondent court had earlier dismissed the election protest by granting the motion for dismissal on January 31, 1974.
The dismissal was based on the contention that the court had lost jurisdiction due to the case being rendered moot and academic by the President’s authority under General Order No. 3 and the constitutional provision (Article XVII, Section 9 of the 1973 Constitution) authorizing the removal of incumbent officials.
Petitioner filed a timely appeal against the questioned dismissal order.

The Court relied on its recent decisions in Cases L-36927-28, L-37715, and L-38831, which affirmed that courts of first instance retain jurisdiction to hear, try, and decide election protests.
Emphasis was placed on the principle that even though Section 9 of Article XVII provides for an indefinite term to incumbent officials, this effect does not shield them from judicial scrutiny if their election is tainted by fraud or other irregularities.

The dismissal order rested on the interpretation of constitutional provisions and the President’s power to remove officials, questioning whether such removal automatically falls outside the jurisdiction of the courts to adjudicate election protests.
The case highlighted the tension between constitutional directives granting incumbents an indefinite term and the fundamental right of citizens to have the correctness of elections determined on the merits.

Whether the respondent court lost its jurisdiction to hear the election protest on the ground that the case had become moot and academic by the application of the President’s removal power under General Order No. 3 and Article XVII, Section 9 of the 1973 Constitution.

Whether the removal of the original protestee (Edgardo H. Morales) and the subsequent substitution by Rodolfo de Leon altered the nature or validity of the election.
Whether the indefinite term conferred by the constitutional provision protected the incumbent officials from any challenge regarding the legality of their election.

Whether courts of first instance have continuing jurisdiction to resolve election protests notwithstanding intervening constitutional or administrative actions.
The issue of whether dismissing a protest on technical grounds (mootness or academic character) is appropriate when serious allegations of fraud and irregularities have been raised.