Gica v. Consolacion
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerned the validity of appointments to the municipal police force of Dumanjug, Cebu. Private respondents alleged they were duly appointed policemen on May 10, 1966, by the acting mayor and approved by the municipal council. Petitioners, including the municipal mayor and members of the police force, had their appointments disapproved by the municipal council. This led to threats and attempts to disarm the private respondents by the Chief of Staff of the Philippine Constabulary and the provincial commander of Cebu, based on an opinion that the acting mayor could not validly appoint police members during the suspension of the mayor. 2. Procedural History: The private respondents filed a petition for declaratory relief with mandatory and prohibitory injunction and preliminary injunction against various officials, including the Chief of Staff, provincial commander, provincial governor, provincial auditor, Mayor Guntrano C. Gica, and members of the police force appointed by Mayor Gica. In an order dated March 15, 1967, the Court of First Instance of Cebu issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the respondents from disarming the petitioners and depriving them of their positions. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration and to lift the injunction, which was deferred by the respondent judge until after trial on the merits. This led to the filing of the present petition for certiorari. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari on September 8, 1967, seeking a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the respondent judge from enforcing the preliminary injunction issued in Civil Case No. 355-BC and to make that writ permanent or dissolve it. The Supreme Court issued its own writ of preliminary injunction on September 14, 1967. Subsequently, in a manifestation dated June 10, 1972, counsel for the private petitioners stated that the issues had become moot and academic because the incumbent presiding judge had dismissed Civil Case No. 355-BC for lack of prosecution. The Supreme Court required the respondents to comment, but they did not. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as moot and academic.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari has become moot and academic due to the dismissal of the underlying Civil Case No. 355-BC.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari as moot and academic, without pronouncement as to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court found that the petition had become moot and academic. This was based on a manifestation by the counsel for the private petitioners stating that the incumbent presiding judge in Civil Case No. 355-BC had dismissed the said case for lack of interest on the part of the petitioners therein to prosecute it. The dismissal order, dated June 2, 1972, was attached as an annex. Consequently, the dismissal of the original case necessarily dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction issued therein, which was the very subject of the validity being questioned in the petition before the Supreme Court. Since the issue of the preliminary injunction's validity was rendered moot by the dismissal of the main case, the Supreme Court saw no further need to rule on the petition for certiorari. The respondents failed to file a comment on the manifestation of mootness, further supporting the inference that the original case was indeed dismissed.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition for certiorari seeking to make permanent a writ of preliminary injunction, finding the case moot and academic. This was because the underlying civil case in the Court of First Instance, where the preliminary injunction was issued, had already been dismissed by the presiding judge due to the petitioners' lack of interest in prosecuting it. Consequently, the dismissal of the original case automatically dissolved the preliminary injunction, rendering the Supreme Court's resolution of its validity unnecessary.