Di' Mark's Inc. v. Buendia
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: DI' MARK's Inc. (petitioner) was involved in an ejectment suit filed by Olga M. Brady, as trustee of Laney Muller Trust (respondent), concerning lots and buildings located at 4 Abanao Street, Baguio. Procedural History: The ejectment suit was filed in the City Court of Baguio. DI' MARK's Inc. subsequently filed a petition for prohibition with the Supreme Court, seeking to prevent the city court from hearing the ejectment case. The Petition: DI' MARK's Inc. filed a petition for prohibition, praying that the City Court of Baguio be ordered to desist from hearing Civil Case No. 4372. A supplemental petition was later filed. After the parties submitted their memoranda, the case was submitted for decision. The Supreme Court later required the parties to state whether the case had become moot and academic.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for prohibition has become moot and academic.
Ruling
The case is dismissed for having become moot and academic. No costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the petition for prohibition has become moot and academic: The Supreme Court found that the case had indeed become moot and academic. This determination was based on the manifestations of both DI' Mark's Inc. and Laney Muller Trust. DI' Mark's Inc. stated that it had vacated the premises at 4 Abanao Street, Baguio, in December 1971. Consequently, the subject matter of the ejectment suit, which was the possession of the said premises, no longer presented a live controversy. As there was no longer a practical or legal dispute to resolve, the Court concluded that the petition for prohibition, which sought to prevent the hearing of the ejectment case, had lost its purpose. The Court's action of dismissing the case aligns with the principle that judicial resources should not be expended on issues that have ceased to have any real-world consequence or legal effect.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for prohibition as moot and academic because the petitioner had already vacated the premises subject to the ejectment suit. This aligns with the principle that courts will not adjudicate cases where the issues have become moot and there is no longer any justiciable controversy to resolve, thereby conserving judicial time and resources.