Public office issues; exception to mootness

An issue is said to have become moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy so that a declaration on the issue would be of no practical use or value.[1] The Court will therefore abstain from expressing its opinion in a case where no legal relief is needed or called for.[2]Nevertheless, despite mootness and despite the presence of some procedural flaws in a petition, such as disregard of the hierarchy of courts or the non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, the Court may deem it necessary to address the essential issues. For example, it is in the interest of the State that questions relating to the status and existence of a public office be settled without delay.[3]

[1] Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Tuazon, Jr., 469 Phil. 79, 85-86 (2004).

[2] Korea Exchange Bank v. Gonzales, 520 Phil. 690, 701 (2006), citing Desaville, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128310, August 13, 2004, 436 SCRA 387, 391-392.

[3] Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB v. Zamora, 413 Phil. 281, 289-290 (2001); and Dario v. Mison, 257 Phil. 84, 111 (1989).