Villarama v. De la Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Private respondents, Vicente de la Cruz and Mariano Mendoza, operated nightclubs in Bocaue, Bulacan. On December 22, 1964, the Provincial Governor of Bulacan issued a Memorandum Circular directing that no permits be issued for the operation of "nightclubs, saloons, cabarets or the like" effective January 1, 1965. This directive effectively prevented de la Cruz and Mendoza from operating their establishments. 2. Procedural History: De la Cruz and Mendoza filed a civil case (Civil Case No. 3164-M) before the Court of First Instance of Bulacan seeking a writ of mandamus and prohibition to nullify the Governor's Memorandum Circular and compel the issuance of operating permits. The Court of First Instance dismissed the case, ruling that the Municipal Treasurer's discretion in issuing licenses could not be controlled by mandamus. The private respondents then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 35405-R). The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal, holding the Memorandum Circular void for abrogating a municipal ordinance and constituting an unlawful exercise of control. The appellate court ordered the lower court to try the case on the merits and issued a writ of mandatory injunction allowing the respondents to operate. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, including the Governor of Bulacan and other provincial officials, filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to set aside the Court of Appeals' decision and dissolve its writ of mandatory injunction. They argued that the Court of Appeals erred in its ruling. The Supreme Court granted due course to the petition and issued a preliminary injunction restraining the enforcement of the appellate court's writ. However, during the pendency of the case, other nightclub operators in Bulacan were issued licenses, and the petitioners themselves indicated they no longer objected to the respondents' operation, leading the Supreme Court to dismiss the petition as moot and academic.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the dismissal order of the Court of First Instance. Whether the issues raised in the petition have become moot and academic.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed as moot and academic. The Supreme Court dissolved its preliminary injunction and considered the case submitted for decision. The Court noted that the Provincial Governor had virtually abrogated his Memorandum Circular by issuing licenses to other nightclub operators, and that the petitioners no longer objected to the respondents' operation. Therefore, the issues raised were rendered moot and academic.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of mootness: The Supreme Court found that the issues presented in the petition had become moot and academic due to supervening events. The Provincial Governor of Bulacan had effectively withdrawn his Memorandum Circular of December 22, 1964, by subsequently issuing licenses and permits to other nightclub operators in the province. This action by the Governor demonstrated a departure from the strict enforcement of the circular that formed the basis of the dispute. Furthermore, the petitioners themselves, by dissolving their preliminary injunction and not opposing the respondents' motion to lift it, impliedly conceded that they no longer objected to the respondents' operation of their night clubs. This conduct indicated a change in the petitioners' stance and a resolution of the underlying conflict outside of a judicial determination on the merits. The Court reiterated the principle that it will not pass upon questions that are already moot and academic, as there is no practical or legal benefit to be gained from resolving them. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: While the Court did not directly rule on the merits of the alleged grave abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals, its dismissal of the case as moot and academic rendered the question of whether the CA erred in its findings moot. The CA had found that the Municipal Treasurer did not exercise discretion but merely followed the Governor's circular, which it declared void. The Supreme Court's subsequent dissolution of its own injunction and the implied acquiescence of the petitioners to the respondents' operation effectively mooted any further inquiry into the propriety of the CA's actions. The Court's primary concern became the resolution of the case based on the current factual milieu, which indicated that the controversy had ceased to exist in its original form.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari may be dismissed as moot and academic when the issues raised have become moot due to supervening events, such as the issuance of licenses to other operators and the virtual abrogation of the assailed administrative circular by the provincial governor.