Scribd
Upload
1K views2 pages

Nuñez Vs Averia

The petitioner contested the results of the 1971 mayoralty election in Ternate, Cavite, alleging fraud and irregularities. The respondent court dismissed the election protest, claiming it lost jurisdiction as the case was moot due to the 1973 Constitution allowing the President to remove elected officials. However, the Supreme Court sets aside the dismissal, citing recent rulings that courts should continue hearing election protests. Dismissals in such cases constitute clear error, as elected officials still hold their offices under the term they were elected to, and dismissing protests could approve elections marred by fraud or irregularities without due process.

Uploaded by

Audie Joy Sejuela Timusan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views2 pages

Nuñez Vs Averia

The petitioner contested the results of the 1971 mayoralty election in Ternate, Cavite, alleging fraud and irregularities. The respondent court dismissed the election protest, claiming it lost jurisdiction as the case was moot due to the 1973 Constitution allowing the President to remove elected officials. However, the Supreme Court sets aside the dismissal, citing recent rulings that courts should continue hearing election protests. Dismissals in such cases constitute clear error, as elected officials still hold their offices under the term they were elected to, and dismissing protests could approve elections marred by fraud or irregularities without due process.

Uploaded by

Audie Joy Sejuela Timusan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

NUÑEZ vs AVERIA and MORALES, substituted by RODOLFO DE LEON

G.R. No. L-38415 June 28, 1974

FACTS: Petitioner is the protestant in Election Case No. TM-470 of respondent court contesting
the November 8, 1971 election results in certain precincts for the mayoralty of Ternate, Cavite
on the ground of fraud, irregularities and corrupt practices. Original protestee was the proclaimed
mayor-elect Edgardo Morales, who was ambushed and killed on 1974 and hence was succeeded
by then vice-mayor Rodolfo de Leon (respondent).

Respondent court had in its questioned order of January 31, 1974 granted protestee's motion for
dismissal of the election protest on the ground that the court lost its jurisdiction as the case has
become moot and academic, citing the President's authority under the 1973 Constitution to
remove from office all incumbent government officials and employees, whether elective or
appointive. *

ISSUE: Whether or not the election protest against the respondent be dismissed.

RULING: The Court sets aside respondent court's questioned order of dismissal of the pending
election protest before it on the authority of its recent decisions (Paredes, Sunga and Valley),
ruling that courts of first instance "should continue and exercise their jurisdiction to hear, try and
decide the election protests".

The Court in its unanimous joint decision en banc in the above-cited cases has already declared
such dismissal orders as "clear error," ruling that "It must be emphasized that the “right” of the
private respondents to continue in office indefinitely arose not only from the New Constitution*
but principally from their having been proclaimed elected to their respective positions as a result
of the 1971 elections.
The Court’s opinion is that they hold their respective offices still under the term to which they
have been elected, although the same is now indefinite. It is further stressed therein that to hold
that the right of the respondents to the respective offices which they are now holding as no
longer be subject to question would be tantamount to giving a stamp of approval to what could
have been an election victory characterized by fraud, threats, intimidation, vote buying, or other
forms of irregularities.

Doctrine: Public office is not a property; but to the extent that security of tenure cannot be
compromised without due process, it is in a limited sense analogous to property. (Morfe v.
Mutuc, L-20387, January 31, 1968.)

*SEC. 9. All officials and employees in the existing Government of the Republic of the
Philippines shall continue in office until otherwise provided by law or decreed by the incumbent
President of the Philippines, but all officials whose appointments are by this Constitution vested
in the Prime Minister shall vacate their respective offices upon the appointment and qualification
of their successors

You might also like