Serrano v. Amores
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involved the possession of five apartments in Olongapo City. Oscar Lopez initiated a civil suit against Cesar Serrano, seeking possession of these properties. Procedural History: In the civil suit, the respondent Judge Augusto M. Amores issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction ordering Cesar Serrano to deliver possession of the apartments to Oscar Lopez. This injunction was based on a P30,000.00 bond. Subsequently, the respondent court dismissed the civil complaint and counterclaim, and set aside the order issuing the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. The Petition: Cesar Serrano filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court, seeking to nullify the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. The respondents later filed a motion to dismiss the petition, arguing that the issues were moot and academic due to the dismissal of the underlying civil case. Serrano opposed this motion, contending that the legal issues remained relevant for jurisprudential guidance.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari and prohibition should be dismissed on the ground that the issues have become moot and academic. Whether the Supreme Court should issue an advisory opinion on issues that are no longer the subject of an actual controversy.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari and prohibition is dismissed for being moot and academic.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the petition for certiorari and prohibition should be dismissed on the ground that the issues have become moot and academic: The Court granted the motion to dismiss filed by the respondents. It was established that the respondent court had, on August 5, 1974, dismissed the complaint and counterclaim in the civil case pending before it, and consequently, set aside the order dated October 25, 1971, which had issued the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. This dismissal was based on a joint motion of the parties. Therefore, the subject matter of the petition before the Supreme Court, which was the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, was rendered moot and academic by the subsequent dismissal of the main civil case. The Court emphasized that it would not pass upon issues that have ceased to have any practical effect or legal significance. On Whether the Supreme Court should issue an advisory opinion on issues that are no longer the subject of an actual controversy: The Court unequivocally stated that judicial power does not extend to the issuance of advisory opinions. Petitioner's insistence on having the legal issues threshed out, even after the case became moot, was rejected. The Court reasoned that it would not serve public interest to devote its time and attention to matters that are clearly moot and academic, especially when there are many other pending cases involving actual and antagonistic assertions of rights. The petitioner's stand was found to be without merit and not deserving of serious consideration, as no valid objective would be achieved by resolving the case under such circumstances.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition for certiorari and prohibition because the underlying civil case, which was the subject of the petition, had been dismissed by the respondent court upon joint motion of the parties. Consequently, the issues raised in the petition became moot and academic, and the Court reiterated its stance against issuing advisory opinions on matters that no longer present an actual and antagonistic assertion of rights.