G & P Company v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: G & P Company (G-P) leased a house and lot to Manuel Mondejar in 1961. A dispute arose over unpaid rentals, leading G-P to file an ejectment suit in 1972. The Municipal Court ruled in favor of G-P, ordering Mondejar to vacate and pay back rentals. Mondejar appealed this decision to the Court of First Instance (CFI). Procedural History: During the appeal in the CFI, G-P sought the execution of the Municipal Court's judgment due to Mondejar's failure to file a supersedeas bond and deposit monthly rentals. The CFI initially ordered the execution, but it was held in abeyance due to settlement negotiations. Subsequent alias writs of execution were issued and lifted multiple times. Mondejar filed a mandamus proceeding with the Court of Appeals to compel the CFI to lift an order of execution, which was dismissed, and this dismissal was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Following these proceedings, G-P filed a motion for another alias writ of execution in 1979, which the CFI granted, leading to further orders that Mondejar sought to set aside. The Petition: This petition for review on certiorari seeks to annul the Court of Appeals' decision of February 20, 1980, which had given due course to a certiorari petition filed by the private respondents (Mondejar and his wife). The Court of Appeals annulled the CFI's orders of February 15 and March 13, 1979, which had granted G-P's motion for a second alias writ of execution. G-P argues that the Court of Appeals erred in annulling these orders.
Issue(s)
Whether the instant petition for review on certiorari has become moot and academic due to the private respondent's prior physical ejection from the subject leased property during the pendency of the petition and the resolution of the ejectment case on the merits.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for having become moot and academic. The Court noted that during the pendency of the case, G-P filed a motion to set the case for trial on the merits in Civil Case No. 16668, which resulted in a judgment in favor of G-P ordering Mondejar to vacate the leased property. Subsequently, a writ of execution was issued, Mondejar's properties were levied, and the Mondejars were ejected from the leased property. Therefore, the raison d'etre of the petition had already been resolved.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Mootness: The Supreme Court held that the petition had indeed become moot and academic, rendering its dismissal imperative. This determination was based on the significant supervening events that occurred during the pendency of the petition for review. It was noted that G-P had, on May 28, 1984, filed a motion to set the underlying ejectment case, Civil Case No. 16668, for trial on the merits before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig. Following the presentation of evidence ex-parte by G-P due to Mondejar's non-appearance, the RTC rendered a judgment on September 9, 1985, favoring G-P and definitively ordering Mondejar to vacate the leased property and surrender possession thereof. Subsequently, an order for the issuance of a writ of execution was granted on November 22, 1985, leading to the actual levy of Mondejar's properties and their ejection from the leased premises on April 3 and 4, 1986. Therefore, the raison d'etre (reason for being) of the present petition, which sought to reinstate prior CFI orders related to an earlier writ of execution, had been extinguished by the final and physical resolution of the underlying possessory dispute. The Court reiterated the established jurisprudence that a case becomes moot and academic when the tenant has already vacated the premises and possession has been delivered to the owner, citing Tinio v. Castro, 136 SCRA 658 (1985). Furthermore, it affirmed that a case is also dismissed as moot and academic where a related case has resolved all the varied issues raised between the parties, consistent with GSIS v. CA, 149 SCRA 379 (1987). The Court emphasized that it is a settled rule that courts will not determine moot questions or abstract propositions, nor will they express an opinion in a case where no practical relief can be granted, referencing Meralco Workers Union v. Yatco, 19 SCRA 177 (1967), Bongat v. Bureau of Labor Relations, 136 SCRA 225 (1985), and Lomo v. Mabelin, 146 SCRA 473 (1986).
Main Doctrine
A case becomes moot and academic and should be dismissed where the tenant has already vacated the premises and possession thereof has already been delivered to the owner, or where a related case has resolved all the varied issues raised between the parties. A court will not determine moot questions or abstract propositions nor express an opinion in a case in which no practical relief can be granted.