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, Cav ite on the ground of fraud, irregularities and corrupt p ractices. 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 q uestioned order of January 31, 1974 granted protestee's motion for dismissal of the election protest on the ground tha t 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 emplo yees, whether elective or appointive. *
ISSUE: Whether or not the election protest against a gainst 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 autho rity of its recent decisions ( Paredes, Paredes, Sunga and Sunga and Valley), Valley), ruling that courts of first instance "should continue and ex ercise their jurisdiction to hear, try and decide the election protests". The Court in its unanimous joint decision en banc in banc in the above-cited cases has already declared such dismissal orders as "clear error," ruling that "It must must be emphasized that the “right” of “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 analo gous 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 b y law or decreed by the incumbent President of the Philippines, but all officials whose appointments are b y this Constitution vested in the Prime Minister shall vacate their respective offices upon the appointment and qualification of their successors
