G.R. No. 135716 September 23, 1999 FERDINAND TRINIDAD, petitioner, vs.COMMIS vs. COMMISSION SION ON ELECTIONS !" MAN#EL C. S#NGA, respondents. FACTS: Petitioner (herein private respondent) Manuel C. Sunga was one of the candidates for the position of Maor in the Municipalit of !guig, Province of Cagaan, in the Ma ", #$$% elections. Private respondent (herein petitioner) Ferdinand Ferdinand &. Trinidad, then incu'ent 'aor, was a candidate for reelection reelection in the sa'e 'unicipa 'unicipalit lit.. 1âwph *n ++ Ap Apri rill #$ #$$% $%,, Sung Sunga a led led with with the the C*M--C a letterco'plaint for dis/ualication against Trinidad. Meanwhile, the election results showed that Trinidad garnered the highest nu'er of votes, while Sunga trailed second. *n #0 Ma #$$% Sunga 'oved for the suspension of the procla'ation of Trinidad. 1owever, notwithstanding the 'otion, Trinidad was proclai'ed the elected 'aor, pro'pting Sunga to le another 'otion to suspend the e2ec e2ects ts of the the proc procla la'a 'ati tion on.. &oth &oth 'oti 'otion ons s wer were not not acte acted d upon upon the the C*M--C +nd 3ivision. *n +" 4une #$$% the C*M--C aw 3epart'ent su'itted its 5eport to the C*M--C En Banc reco''ending that Trinidad e charged in court for violation of the following penal provisions of the *'nius -lection Code: (a) Sec. Sec. +6 +6#, #, par par. (a), (a), on vote vote ui uing ng77 () () Sec. Sec. +6 +6#, #, par par. (e), (e), on thr threats eats,, inti'idation, terroris' or other for's of coercion7 and, (c) Sec. +6#, par. (o), on use of an e/uip'ent, vehicle owned the govern'ent or an of its political sudivisions. The aw 3epart'ent li8ewise reco''ended to recall and revo8e the procla'ation of Ferdinand 3. Trinidad as the dul elected Maor Maor of !guig, !guig, Cagaa Cagaan7 n7 procl proclai' ai' Manuel Manuel C. Sunga Sunga as the dul dul electe elected d Mao Maor, r, and, and, dir direct ect Sung Sunga a to ta8 ta8e his his oath oath and and assu assu'e 'e the the duti duties es and and functions of the o9ce. Petitioner alleges that the /uestioned 5esolutions were pro'ulgated with withou outt an an hear hearin ing g cond conduc ucte ted d and and with withou outt his his evid eviden ence ce havi having ng een een considered the C*M--C, in violation of his right to due process. 1e also contends that the portion of the *ctoer #, #$$" 5esolution annulling his procla'ation as Maor in the Ma ##, #$$" elections was rendered without prior notice and hearing and that he was once 'ore e2ectivel denied due process. *n Mar March ", #$ #$$$ $$,, the the Soli Solici cito torr ;ene ;enera rall led led a Co'' Co''en entt for for the the C*M-C*M--C, C, reitera eiteratin ting g the argu' argu'ent ent that that the C*M-C*M--C C is e'powe e'powere red d to dis/ualif petitioner fro' continuing to hold pulic o9ce and at the sa'e ti'e, arring private respondent*? petitionere note note that that peti petiti tion oner er
5esolution was issued C*M--C on 4une ++, #$$", petitioner was still serving his ter'. 1owever, the ti'e the Motion for 5econsideration of petitioner was led on 4ul , #$$", the case had alread eco'e 'oot and acade'ic as his ter' had alread e@pired. So, too, the second /uestioned 5esolution which was issued on *ctoer #, #$$", ca'e at a ti'e when the issue of the case had alread een rendered 'oot and acade'ic the e@piration of petitionerith the co'plaint for dis/ualication of private respondent rendered 'oot and acade'ic the e@piration of petitionerhile it is true that the rst /uestioned 5esolution was issued eight (") das efore the ter' of petitioner as Maor e@pired, said 5esolution had not et attained nalit and could not e2ectivel e held to have re'oved petitioner fro' his o9ce. !ndeed, re'oval cannot e@tend eond the ter' during which the alleged 'isconduct was co''itted. !f a pulic o9cial is not re'oved efore his ter' of o9ce e@pires, he can no longer e re'oved if he is thereafter reelected for another ter'. Therefore, the 5esolution of the C*M--C dated *ctoer #, #$$" which annulled petitioner
