WORLD-WIDE INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. SERAFIN R. CUEVAS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANIL…

Private respondent Buenaventura Saldaña
was the owner of a motor vehicle which he had insured with the herein
petitioner, World-Wide Insurance & Surety Co., Inc.  While the
policy was in force, the driver of the private respondent disappeared with the
motor vehicle and his whereabouts, as well as that of the motor vehicle, are
still unknown despite diligent efforts to locate them.

As a result, Saldaña filed a complaint
against the insurance company to recover the proceeds of the policy, but the
latter refused to pay on the ground that the assured “who is engaged in the
business of ‘service’ is subsidiarily liable to the
defendant for the acts of his employee (driver) and, therefore, whatever the
defendant may be compelled by the Court to pay the plaintiff can be set off by
his liability to the defendant, and that plaintiff
failed to take all reasonable steps to safeguard the motor vehicle from loss or
damage in violation of one of the policy conditions.”^[1]

The parties submitted a “Stipulation of Facts and Issues”, after
which, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, “ordering
defendant to pay plaintiff the sum of P15,000.00 with
6% interest thereon per annum from the time of the filing of the complaint until
the whole amount shall have been totally paid;
P3,000.00 as attorney’s fees, this being merely an ex-parte
case;  and to pay costs.”^[2]

The defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision,
but the trial court denied the same for lack of merit.  Thereupon,
the defendant filed a notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal,
signifying its intention to appeal to the Court of Appeals.  A
few days later, the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the appeal
on the ground that it was not perfected on time, since the motion for
reconsideration of the decision filed by the defendant was a pro-forma
motion and did not interrupt the period for the perfection of appeals. 
The trial court found the motion to dismiss well taken and, accordingly,
dismissed the defendant’s appeal.  Whereupon, the defendant filed a
petition for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, with preliminary
injunction and/or restraining order with the Court of Appeals
seeking the annulment of the order dismissing its appeal and praying that its
appeal be given due course.

The appellate court, however, dismissed the petition on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction since the appealed decision is based upon stipulated
facts and purely questions of law are involved in the projected appeal. 
The defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of this resolution, but
the same was denied by the appellate court.  Hence, the defendant
filed a petition for certiorari with this Court.

Sometime later, counsel for the respondents manifested to this
Court “that in satisfaction of the judgment, petitioner has paid respondent
Buenaventura Saldaña P20,700.00 under Filipinas Bank & Trust Co. Check No. 109062
thru the Sheriff of Manila.”^[3]

WHEREFORE, the case should be, as it is hereby DISMISSED
for being moot and academic.

SO
ORDERED.

Fernan, (Chairman), Alampay,
Gutierrez, Jr., Paras, Bidin, and Cortes,
JJ., concur.

^[2] id.., p. 21

^[3] Rollo, p. 91