G.R. No. L-56968. April 30, 1984.
RODOLFO DE LEON, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and CONRADO LINDO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Rodolfo de Leon and respondent Conrado Lindo were candidates for municipal mayor of Ternate, Cavite in the January 30, 1980 elections. On January 25, 1980, petitioner filed a verified letter-petition with the COMELEC seeking to disqualify respondent Lindo on the ground that he allegedly lacked the six-month residency requirement, asserting Lindo was a resident of Noveleta, Cavite. Petitioner supplemented his petition with certifications from local officials of Noveleta to support his claim. The election proceeded without a resolution on the disqualification case.
Petitioner was subsequently proclaimed the duly-elected mayor and assumed office. On February 28, 1980, the COMELEC denied the disqualification petition for insufficiency of evidence. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which was also denied. The COMELEC held the pre-proclamation controversy had become moot and academic since petitioner was already proclaimed and discharging the duties of mayor. It further noted uncontroverted certifications showing Lindo had voted in Ternate during prior elections.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for disqualification against respondent Lindo.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the COMELEC’s decision. The legal logic is anchored on two key principles. First, the petition constituted a pre-proclamation controversy, which became moot upon petitioner’s proclamation and assumption of office. Settled jurisprudence dictates that once a candidate is proclaimed and has assumed the position, a pre-proclamation contest should be laid to rest, as the proper remedies are an election protest or a quo warranto proceeding. Petitioner, having been proclaimed and performing mayoral functions, could not insist on continuing the pre-proclamation case.
Second, there was no denial of procedural due process. Petitioner himself submitted his evidence through letters and documentary certifications, implicitly requesting an expeditious resolution based solely on those documents. He did not move for a formal hearing to present additional testimonial evidence. The COMELEC evaluated the submitted evidence and found it insufficient to prove Lindo’s non-residency. Moreover, the filing of a motion for reconsideration cured any alleged procedural defect. The COMELEC correctly found no factual basis for the disqualification charge, especially given the uncontroverted evidence of Lindo’s voting record in Ternate. Thus, no grave abuse of discretion attended the COMELEC’s dismissal of the petition.