YU KHE THAI, DAVID SYCIP, ELIGIO TEEHANKEE, AND DALTON T. CHEN, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. GUILLERMO S. SANTOS, AS JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, YU KHE SIONG, YU KH…

On August 28, 1968, petitioners^[1]
filed a special civil action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with a
prayer for preliminary injunction against respondents^[2]
to set aside an omnibus order of respondent Judge, the Honorable Guillermo S.
Santos, of July 25, 1968 insofar as it upheld the election as Directors of
Northern Motors, Inc. of the other respondents, for being null and void.  In the meanwhile, they would restrain such
private respondents from assuming the office of Directors and performing the
functions, duties and powers, pending the final determination of this
proceeding.  On the 29th day of August,
1968, a resolution was issued by us restraining the enforcement of all the
orders issued by the respondent Judge, except that portion thereof reinstating
the officers and directors of the Northern Motors, Inc., and requiring
respondents to answer.

At the hearing on September 3, 1968, counsel for both petitioners
and respondents appeared, the former being given a period of fifteen days
within which to submit a memorandum in lieu of oral argument, and the latter,
five days to reply from receipt of the copy of petitioners’ memorandum.  The memorandum for petitioners was duly filed
on September 18, 1968.  A reply memorandum for respondents was filed
on October 7, 1968,
respondents being previously given an extension of fifteen days from September 25, 1968 to file the same.

Then came, on November 22, 1968, a joint manifestation and motion
by petitioners and private respondents, worded thus:  “1. 
An amicable settlement of their dispute, subject matter of this case,
will be to the mutual benefit and advantage of the parties litigants as well as
other stockholders of Northern Motors, Inc.; 2. 
Negotiations for settlement of their dispute have resulted in an
agreement on the terms of an amicable settlement.  However, performance of the obligations of
the parties is spread over a period of time and subject to certain conditions;
3.  One of the terms of the agreement
calls for the filing by the parties of a joint manifestation praying for
suspension of these proceedings until consummation of the agreement; 4.  Suspension of the proceedings in this case
will assure consummation of the amicable settlement and thereby terminate the
litigation.”  By virtue of the above
joint manifestation and motion, this Court, on November 26, 1968, suspended
action on the matter, and the hearing set for November 27, 1968 was cancelled.

A resolution was issued by this Court on April 8, 1970 to this effect:  “L-29413 (Yu Khe
Thai, et al. vs. Hon. Guillermo Santos, etc., et al.). – Considering that the
proceedings in this case have been suspended by the resolution of July 24, 1968,
upon the parties having jointly manifested to this Court that settlement was
being negotiated between them, but it appearing that until now, neither party
has moved, [the Court resolved] to require the parties in this case to comment
on the matter within 10 days from notice hereof.”  There was this manifestation by the parties
of May 7, 1970:  “[Come now] the
parties thru counsels and respectfully manifest to this Honorable Court that
while the major areas of dispute between them have already been settled
amicably, one or two minor matters still have to be agreed upon.  This agreement depends upon investigation and
determination of facts and figures which are not yet available.  It is estimated that it will take two or
three months to settle these matters.”

Finally, on October 30, 1970, came this joint manifestation and
motion: “The parties, by their respective counsel, respectfully state: 1.
They have, with the assistance of disinterested mediators, reached a compromise
in this case, and that with respect to matters that may still have to be
implemented, they have agreed to abide by the decision of the mediators;
2.  This special civil action and Civil
Case No. 72028 (Yu Khe Thai et al. vs. Yu Khe Siong et al.) of the Court of
First Instance of Manila have become moot.”  The prayer is for an order declaring this
special civil action moot.

WHEREFORE, the joint manifestation and motion of October 30, 1970 is granted, and
this special civil action declared moot.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Ruiz Castro,
Barredo, and Villamor, JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., took no part.

Dizon and
Makasiar, JJ., on
official leave.

^[1]
The petitioners are Yu Khe Thai, David Sycip, Eligio Teehankee
and Dalton T. Chen.

^[2]
The respondents are Hon. Guillermo S. Santos, as Judge of the Court of First
Instance of Manila, Yu Khe Siong,
Yu Khe Jin, Arthur Young, Yu Cheng Pho, Baldwin Young, Yu Tek Ti, Yu
Cheng Kho and Yu Khe Tat.