AR

CASE NO. 380

ART. VII. SEC. 52.88. MOOTNESS
Filipinas Engineering v. Ferrer 135 SCRA 25 (1985)

FACTS: COMELEC awarded the contract to Acme for the manufacture and supply of voting booths. However, the losing bidder,
petitioner in the instant case, Filipinas Engineering filed an Injunction suit against COMELEC and Acme. The lower court denied
the writ prayed for. Thereafter, ACME filed a motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the lower court has no jurisdiction over the
case which the court granted. Filipinas' motion for reconsideration was denied for lack of merit. Hence, this appeal for certiorari.

ISSUES/RULING:
(1) W/N the petition is moot and academic.
YES. Since no restraining order had been issued against the holding of the national elections scheduled on November 11, 1969,
Acme complied with its contract with the COMELEC. CONSIDERING HOWEVER the nature and importance of the legal questions
raised, the Court opted to discuss and resolve the same with finality. The SC will resolve a case even though it may be moot
and academic because of the importance of the legal questions raised, such as the reviewability on certiorari of
administrative decisions of the Comelec.

(2) W/N the lower court had jurisdiction to take cognizance of a suit.
YES. The COMELEC resolution awarding the contract to Acme was not issued pursuant to its quasi-judicial function but merely
as an incident of its inherent administrative function over the conduct of elections, and hence, the said resolution may not be
deemed as a "final order" reviewable by certiorari by the Supreme Court.

AR
CASE NO. 381
ART. VII. SEC. 52.88. MOOTNESS
ABS-CBN v. Comelec GR No. 133486 (2000)

FACTS: The Resolution which approved the issuance of a restraining order to stop ABS-CBN from conducting exit survey was
issued by the Comelec allegedly upon information from a reliable source that ABS-CBN has prepared a project to conduct radio-
TV coverage of the elections and to make an exit survey of the vote during the elections for national officials. The electoral body
believed that such project might conflict with the official Comelec count, as well as the unofficial quick count of NAMFREL.

ISSUE: W/N the petition must be dismissed for being moot and academic since the May 11, 1998 election has already been held.

RULING: NO. While the assailed Resolution referred specifically to the May 11, 1998 election, its implications on the people's
fundamental freedom of expression transcend the past election. By its very nature, exit polling is tied up with elections. To set
aside the resolution of the issue now will only postpone a task that could well crop up again in future elections.

The SC will decide an issue, even though it may have become moot and academic, like exit polling in the past election,
where “its implications on the people’s fundamental freedom of expression transcend the past election”, and the issue
“could well crop up again in future elections”, and in order to fulfill the SC’s “duty to formulate guiding and controlling
constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines, or rules”, and its “symbolic function of educating bench and bar on the
extent of protection given by constitutional guarantees.”

AR
CASE NO. 382
ART. VII. SEC. 52.88. MOOTNESS
Filipinas Engineering v. Ferrer 135 SCRA 25 (1985)

FACTS: COMELEC awarded the contract to Acme for the manufacture and supply of voting booths. However, the losing bidder,
petitioner in the instant case, Filipinas Engineering filed an Injunction suit against COMELEC and Acme. The lower court denied
the writ prayed for. Thereafter, ACME filed a motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the lower court has no jurisdiction over the
case which the court granted. Filipinas' motion for reconsideration was denied for lack of merit. Hence, this appeal for certiorari.

ISSUES/RULING:
(1) W/N the petition is moot and academic.
YES. Since no restraining order had been issued against the holding of the national elections scheduled on November 11, 1969,
Acme complied with its contract with the COMELEC. It is advisable for counsel to ask the SC to issue a temporary restraining
order against the Comelec to stop it from implementing its challenged decision and avoid the possibility that the issue
might become moot and academic.

(2) W/N the lower court had jurisdiction to take cognizance of a suit.
YES. The COMELEC resolution awarding the contract to Acme was not issued pursuant to its quasi-judicial function but merely
as an incident of its inherent administrative function over the conduct of elections, and hence, the said resolution may not be
deemed as a "final order" reviewable by certiorari by the Supreme Court.