Nordic Asia Limited v. Agton
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: JIBSEN Trading Corp. contracted to supply PHILBAKE with wheat flour. The supplier loaded the flour onto the vessel M/V "FYLYPPA," consigned to PHILBAKE. Shipping documents identified SEXTANT Maritime S.A. as the owner, though the charter party indicated CHRISTENSEN Lines as owner and time charterer, with THEILSHIP as manager. Due to CHRISTENSEN's receivership, JIBSEN and JIBFAIR Shipping Corp. were forced to advance significant funds for bunker fuel, Suez Canal fees, and port expenses. The vessel arrived at its first destination, Davao City, twenty-two days behind schedule. Procedural History: JIBSEN and JIBFAIR filed a case for sum of money with a prayer for restraining order, injunction, and attachment against CHRISTENSEN, THEILSHIP, and SEXTANT Maritime S.A. in the Regional Trial Court of Davao City. The respondent judge issued orders for unloading cargo, enjoining the vessel's removal, and attaching the vessel. These orders were complicated by a prior arrest warrant issued in another case. PHILBAKE intervened, claiming damages for the delay. Petitioners, Nordic Asia Limited (DnC Ltd.) and Bankers Trust Company, sought to intervene as unpaid mortgagees of the vessel, but their initial motion to discharge the attachment via counterbond was denied by the respondent judge. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus and certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to compel the respondent judge to accept their counterbond and discharge the attachment, and to annul the judge's order of May 2, 1986. However, the vessel had already been sold at public auction and had left Philippine waters. The Supreme Court found the petition moot and academic, as the vessel was no longer within Philippine territory and the attachment could no longer be discharged. The Court also noted that the petition was prematurely filed as the respondent judge had not yet finalized the valuation of the vessel for the counterbond.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for mandamus and certiorari seeking to discharge the attachment has become moot and academic. Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders dated January 15, 1986, April 1, 1986, and May 2, 1986.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The Supreme Court recalled its order giving due course to the petition.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of mootness: The Court found that the petition for mandamus and certiorari, insofar as it sought to discharge the attachment, had become moot and academic. This was because the petitioners had succeeded in removing the vessel out of Philippine territory and selling it at public auction even before filing the petition before the Supreme Court, and despite the writ of attachment issued by the respondent judge. The Court reiterated the settled rule that a court will not determine moot questions or abstract propositions, nor express an opinion in a case on which no practical relief can be granted. The removal of the vessel and its subsequent sale rendered any ruling on the discharge of the attachment without practical or useful purpose. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by passing on the merits of the petition. The Court cited several cases to support this principle, including Central Azucarera Don Pedro v. Don Pedro Security Guards Union, Bongat v. Bureau of Labor Relations, National Union of Garments Textile Cordage and General Workers of the Philippines (GATCORD) v. Ministry of Labor, Lomo v. Mabelin, and Espina v. Provincial Board of Leyte. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Court did not directly rule on the alleged grave abuse of discretion by the respondent judge. However, by dismissing the petition on the ground of mootness, it implicitly found no necessity to delve into the procedural correctness of the respondent judge's orders. The Court noted that the assailed May 2, 1986 Order did not require petitioners to post a specific counterbond amount but merely directed parties to submit valuations to guide the judge in determining the value of the vessel. The petitioners' immediate resort to the Supreme Court without complying with this order was deemed premature. Consequently, since the core relief sought (discharge of attachment) was rendered impossible by subsequent events, the procedural issues surrounding the attachment and counterbond became inconsequential.
Main Doctrine
A petition for mandamus and certiorari seeking to discharge an attachment becomes moot and academic when the attached vessel has already been removed from Philippine territory and sold at public auction, rendering any ruling on the merits of the petition without practical or useful purpose.