PHILIPPINE VIRGINIA TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ANDRES REYES, AS JUDGE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, AND ALTO SALES CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration versus Alto Sales Corporation

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari with a prayer for preliminary injunction, brought by the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration against Judge Andres Reyes of the Court of First Instance of Rizal and Alto Sales Corporation. The petitioner asks the Supreme Court to nullify the trial court's order and writ of preliminary mandatory injunction in an action for specific performance and damages, and to set aside the order requiring its officer to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. The case matters because it teaches a disciplined lesson on justiciability: a petition questioning an interlocutory writ becomes moot and academic once the trial court has rendered its decision on the merits and that decision is on appeal, and the Supreme Court will not preempt the appellate court's jurisdiction.

Procedural History

Alto Sales Corporation sued the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration in the Court of First Instance of Rizal for specific performance and damages, with a prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction. The trial court granted the writ, issuing its order and writ of preliminary mandatory injunction in May 1967, and later required the officer-in-charge of the petitioner to appear and show cause why he should not be dealt with for contempt for refusing to comply.

The petitioner then came to the Supreme Court on certiorari with a prayer for preliminary injunction. The Court issued a restraining order, but after hearing it denied the prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and lifted the restraining order; it denied reconsideration. The parties later waived oral argument and submitted the case for decision. The Court then required the parties to show cause why the case should not be considered moot, since the trial court had already rendered a decision in the main case. After the parties filed conflicting manifestations, the Court resolved the petition on the merits.

Facts

Alto Sales Corporation commenced an action for specific performance and damages against the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration before the Court of First Instance of Rizal. In that action, the trial court issued an order and a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction in May 1967, and subsequently ordered the officer-in-charge of the petitioner to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt for refusing to comply with the writ.

The petitioner challenged these orders before the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari. The Court initially restrained the enforcement of the challenged orders, but later denied the prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and lifted the restraining order.

Meanwhile, the trial court rendered its decision on the merits in the main case, and a motion to set aside or for reconsideration or for new trial was still pending. The parties then took shifting positions on whether the Supreme Court should decide the petition on the merits. The Court noted that the private respondent had not shown any effort to enforce the writ or to seek sanctions for its non-implementation, having instead opted for the damages already awarded by the trial court.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for certiorari questioning the trial court's order and writ of preliminary mandatory injunction has become moot and academic.
• Whether or not the Supreme Court should rule on the merits of the petition, that is, on whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in granting the writ.
• Whether or not the Supreme Court may rule on whether Alto Sales Corporation has a cause of action against the petitioner for breach of contract.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote or construe any specific statutory provision; it rests on the procedural doctrine of mootness and the hierarchy of courts. The Court's own resolution framing the question is quoted in the text:

to require the parties to show cause, within ten days from notice hereof, why this case may not now be considered moot.

This resolution shows that the Court itself raised the question of mootness once the trial court had decided the main case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition had become moot and academic. The only issue before it was whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in granting the preliminary mandatory injunction, and that question had become inconsequential because the private respondent had not sought any redress or sanction for the non-enforcement of the writ, having opted instead for the damages awarded by the trial court.

On the second issue, the Court clarified that a decision on the merits of the petition did not mean ruling on the merits of the main action. It explained:

The only issue before Us is whether or not the trial court gravely abused its discretion in granting respondent's petition for preliminary mandatory injunction.

Since the writ's propriety no longer served any useful purpose, the Court declined to rule on it.

On the third issue, the Court held that it could not determine whether Alto Sales Corporation had a cause of action for breach of contract, because that was the very matter already decided by the trial court in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and its decision was then in the process of appeal. The Court refused to preempt the jurisdiction of the appellate court over that appeal.

Doctrine

A petition for certiorari assailing an interlocutory order or writ becomes moot and academic when the trial court has already rendered its decision on the merits of the main case and that decision is on appeal. The Supreme Court will not preempt the jurisdiction of the appellate court over such appeal. The propriety of a preliminary mandatory injunction is a separate question from the merits of the principal action, and where the party in whose favor the writ was issued has opted for damages instead of seeking its enforcement, the Court will not rule on the writ's propriety.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed for being moot and academic, with no pronouncement as to costs.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that the only issue in a certiorari against a preliminary mandatory injunction is grave abuse of discretion in granting it, and that issue becomes moot once the main case is decided and on appeal. Examiners use this case to test mootness, the distinction between the merits of an interlocutory writ and the merits of the principal action, and the Supreme Court's refusal to preempt the appellate court.