MELANIO D. SAMPAYAN et al vs. RAUL A. DAZA et al

MELANIO D. SAMPAYAN et al vs. RAUL A. DAZA et al

G.R. No. 103903.  September 11, 1992

Facts:

On February 18, 1992, petitioners, filed the instant petition for prohibition seeking to disqualify respondent RaulDaza, then incumbent congressman, from continuing to exercise the functions of his office, on the ground that the latter is a greencard holder and a lawful permanent resident of the United States since October 16, 1974.Petitioners allege that Mr.Daza has not renounced his status as permanent resident.Petitioners manifested that on April 2, 1992, they filed a petition before the COMELEC to disqualify respondent Daza from running in the recent May 11, 1992 elections on the basis of Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code and that the instant petition is concerned with the unlawful assumption of office by respondent Daza from June 30, 1987 until June 30, 1992.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent Daza should be disqualified as a member of the House of Representatives for violation of Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code?

Held:

No. The prohibition case should be dismissed because this case is already moot and academic for the reason that petitioners seek to unseat respondent from his position forthe duration of his term of office commencing June 30, 1987 and ending June 30, 1992.  Moreover the jurisdiction of this case rightfully pertains to the House Electoral Tribunal and a writ of prohibition can no longer be issued against respondent since his term has already expired.   Furthermore as a de facto public officer, respondent cannot be made to reimburse funds disbursed during his term of office becaus e his acts are as valid as those of a dejure officer.  Moreover, as a de facto officer, he is entitled to emoluments for actual services rendered.