Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LAZARO C. GAYO v. VIOLETA G. VERCELES

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 166886 2008-07-30	MATTEL v. EMMA FRANCISCO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Gayo v. Verceles,[36] the petition assailing the dismissal of the petition for quo warranto filed by Gayo to declare void the proclamation of Verceles as Mayor of the Municipality of Tubao, La Union during the May 14, 2001 elections, became moot upon the expiration on June 30, 2004 of the contested term of office of Verceles. Nonetheless, the Court resolved the petition since the question involving the one-year residency requirement for those running for public office was one capable of repetition.
	GR No. 179851 2008-04-18	MAYOR JOSE UGDORACION v. COMELEC NACHURA, J.
We are not convinced. Ugdoracion's assertions miss the mark completely. The dust had long settled over the implications of a "green card" holder status on an elective official's qualification for public office. We ruled in Caasi v. Court of Appeals[10] that a Filipino citizen's acquisition of a permanent resident status abroad constitutes an abandonment of his domicile and residence in the Philippines. In short, the "green card" status in the USA is a renunciation of one's status as a resident of the Philippines.[11]
	GR NO. 138965 2006-06-30	PUBLIC INTEREST CENTER INC. v. MAGDANGAL B. ELMA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The resolution of this case had already been overtaken by supervening events. In 2001, the appointees of former President Joseph Estrada were replaced by the appointees of the incumbent president, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. The present PCGG Chairman is Camilo Sabio, while the position vacated by the last CPLC, now Solicitor General Antonio Nachura, has not yet been filled. There no longer exists an actual controversy that needs to be resolved. However, this case raises a significant legal question as yet unresolved - whether the PCGG Chairman can concurrently hold the position of CPLC. The resolution of this question requires the exercise of the Court's judicial power, more specifically its exclusive and final authority to interpret laws. Moreover, the likelihood that the same substantive issue raised in this case will be raised again compels this Court to resolve it.[8] The rule is that courts will decide a question otherwise moot and academic if it is "capable of repetition, yet evading review."[9]