G.R. No. L-45633. February 28, 1979
ELIZABETH PAPILOTA, FOR HERSELF AND AS GUARDIAN OF THE MINORS: MARILOU, MARIJEAN, CERES, LUISITO, CRISPULO, JR., AND DENNIS ALL SURNAMED PAPILOTA, SPOUSES HERMINIAS CALMERIN AN…
DE CASTRO, J.:
In this petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary
injunction filed on February 24, 1977, petitioners seek to restrain enforcement
of the writ of preliminary injunction dated January 10, 1977 issued by the
respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. SP-06239, entitled “San Miguel
Corporation vs. Hon. Midpantao L. Adil”, and to prohibit the respondent
Court of Appeals from taking cognizance of said case.
On June 30, 1969, Crispulo Papilota and Warlito Calmerin were
killed and Nicolas Bretaña, Warlito Papilota, Elisea Diroy, Dionisio Catoto and
Antonio Las were injured in a collision between a passenger jeepney in which
they were passengers and two (2) Coca-Cola trucks, owned by private respondent
San Miguel Corporation (hereinafter called as SMC), driven by private respondent
Romeo C. Zarris (hereinafter called as Zarris). In the criminal case that followed, private respondent Zarris
was acquitted. However, in the Civil
Case No. 9941 against private respondents Zarris and SMC, entitled
“Elizabeth Papilota, et al. vs. San Miguel Corporation, et al.”, the
latter were condemned to pay jointly and severally petitioners P433,000.00 for
actual damages, moral damages, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees in a
judgment dated August 24, 1976 after petitioners were allowed to present their
evidence ex-parte on account of private respondents’ failure to appear
at the hearing. (p. 2, rollo). On August 25, 1976, private respondents were
served with copy of the decision; and on September 6, 1976, they filed a notice
of appeal and paid the correspondent appeal bond. On the following day, they were granted 30-days time from
September 7, 1976, or up to October 7, 1976, within which to file their record
on appeal. On September 24, 1976, the
30th day after receipt of copy of the decision, private respondents filed a
motion for reconsideration and/or new trial. On October 21, 1976, petitioners filed a motion for execution alleging
that (a) having filed a notice of appeal, private respondents were precluded
from filing their motion for reconsideration and/or New Trial; and that (b)
since private respondents had failed to submit their record on appeal by
October 7, 1976, the decision had become final and executory. On December 7, 1976, petitioner Judge Adil
issued an order (a) denying private respondents’ motion for reconsideration
and/or New Trial; (b) disallowing the appeal of private respondents, and (c)
directing the issuance of a writ of execution. On December 8, 1976, a writ of execution was issued. On the same day, December 8, 1976, petitioner
Provincial Sheriff attached several trucks of private respondent SMC and
scheduled their sale at public auction on December 17, 1976. On December 9, 1976, private respondents,
upon receipt of copy of the order of December 7, 1976, filed a new notice of
appeal, a new cash appeal bond and a record on appeal. On the same day of December 9, 1976,
petitioner Judge Adil suspended the scheduled sale of the levied trucks of private
respondent SMC. On January 5, 1977,
petitioner Judge Adil lifted the suspension of the auction sale of the
properties of respondent SMC. On
January 7, 1977, petitioner Judge Adil denied private respondents’ motion for
approval of their record on appeal on the ground that the decision had already
become final and executory. (pp. 323 to
325, Id.) Hence, on January 8, 1977, private respondents SMC and Zarris filed a
petition for certiorari and mandamus, with preliminary injunction with
respondent Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. No. 06239 against petitioners.
On January 10, 1977, respondent Court of Appeals issued a writ of
preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the questioned orders
issued in Civil Case No. 9941 entitled, “Elizabeth Papilota, et al. vs.
San Miguel Corporation, et al.”, which orders are enumerated as follows:
1.
The order dated 7 December 1976 of the respondent judge
ordering the immediate execution of the decision;
2.
The writ of execution dated 8 December 1976 issued by the
Deputy Clerk of Court;
3.
The Notice of Public Auction sale dated 8 December 1976;
4.
The order of the respondent Judge dated 5 January 1977,
ordering immediate execution of the decision;
5.
The Notice of Sale at Public Auction of the respondent Deputy
Provincial Sheriff of Iloilo dated 6 January 1977.
6.
The Notice of Garnishment issued on 6 January 1977 by the
Deputy Provincial Sheriff of Iloilo;
7.
The Order dated 7 January 1977, denying petitioners’ motion
for approval of Record on Appeal. (p.
53, Id).
On January 14, 1977, petitioners filed a motion to lift the
preliminary injunction issued by respondent Court of Appeals on January 10,
1977 which was, however, denied by respondent Court of Appeals in its
resolution dated February 15, 1977. (p.
79, rollo). Hence, the present petition
in which this Court, on March 2, 1977, issued a resolution, requiring, without
giving due course to this petition, the private respondents to comment thereon
(not to file a motion to dismiss) within ten (10) days from notice hereof. (p. 85, rollo). On March 14, 1977, counsel for the petitioners filed a motion for
the issuance of a restraining order prayed for in this petition, followed by
the private respondents’ opposition to such motion. This Court issued a resolution dated June 27, 1977 giving due
course to this petition. (p. 215,
Id). On July 22, 1977, a resolution was
issued by this Court which, among others deferred action on the prayer for the
issuance of a preliminary injunction until the case is decided on the
merits. (p. 220, Id).
Thereafter, this case was declared submitted for decision by this
Court in its resolution dated September 7, 1977. (p. 302, Id). However, on
September 28, 1977, this Court issued a resolution setting aside its
resolutions dated September 7, 1977 and declaring this case submitted for
decision anew. (p. 315, Id).
In the meantime, and pending resolution of this petition,
respondent Court of Appeals rendered a decision on April 1, 1977 in CA-G.R. No.
SP-06239, entitled “San Miguel Corporation vs. Hon. Midpantao L. Adil, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and Mandamus is hereby
granted.
(a)
The Orders of respondent Judge of December 7, 1976, of January
5, 1977, and of January 7, 1977, are set aside, and the Writ of Execution, the
Notices of Public Auction Sale, dated December 8, 1976 and January 6, 1977, as
well as the Notice of Garnishment dated January 6, 1977 are invalidated.
(b)
Respondent Judge is hereby ordered to give due course to
DEFENDANTS’ appeal from the DECISION rendered in the CASE BELOW.
Without pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.” (p. 328, rollo).
On September 16, 1977, petitioners filed a separate petition for
review of the decision dated April 1, 1977 of respondent Court of Appeals and
its resolution denying the motion for reconsideration thereof. That petition was docketed as G.R. No.
L-46693, entitled “Elizabeth Papilota, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et
al.” Subsequently, in reference to that petition, this Court issued a
resolution dated February 13, 1978 which reads as follows:
“L-46693 (Elizabeth Papilota, etc., et al. vs. Court of
Appeals, et al). – Considering the allegations, issues and arguments adduced in
the petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals,
respondents’ comment thereon as well as petitioners’ reply thereto, the Court
Resolved to DENY the petition for lack of merit.” (p. 334, rollo).
Again, on April 14, 1978, this Court
issued the following resolution:
“L-46693 (Elizabeth Papilota, etc., et al. vs. Court of
Appeals, et al). – Considering the grounds of petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration of the resolution of February 13, 1978 which denied the
petition for review, the Court Resolved to DENY the motion for lack of merit
and this denial is FINAL.” (p. 335, rollo).
On April 29, 1978, counsel for the petitioner filed a motion to
amend prayer of the petition, seeking in addition to their prayer as stated in
said petition, to set aside the decision dated April 1, 1977 rendered by the Court
of Appeals, in CA-G.R. No. SP-06239. (p. 319, rollo). Respondents, on
May 18, 1978, filed an opposition to motion to amend prayer of the petition
alleging, among others, that the motion be denied for lack of merit, and that
the present petition be dismissed for being moot and academic. (p. 331, Id). A reply to respondents’ opposition was filed by petitioners. (p. 340, Id).
The question raised in this present petition is whether or not
respondent Court of Appeals has an appellate jurisdiction over the petition for
certiorari and mandamus with preliminary injunction docketed as CA-G.R. No.
SP-06239 entitled “San Miguel Corporation, et al. vs. Hon. Midpantao L.
Adil, et al.” filed by herein respondents on January 8, 1977.
We are of the opinion that the resolutions issued in G.R. No.
L-46693, entitled “Elizabeth Papilota, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et
al” by this Court dated 13 February 1978 and 14 April 1978, respectively
denying petitioners’ petition for review on certiorari of the decision of respondent
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. SP-06239, entitled “San Miguel
Corporation, et al. vs. Hon. Midpantao L. Adil, et al” rendered moot and
academic the issue of jurisdiction raised in this instant petition. The clear implication of the dismissal by this
Court of petitioners’ petition for review on certiorari is the recognition of
the existence of jurisdiction of the respondent Court of Appeals to entertain
private respondents’ petition for mandamus and certiorari with preliminary
injunction.
What is more, this Court’s denial for “lack of merit”
of petitioners’ appeal by way of petition for review from the decision of the
respondent Court of Appeals dated April 1, 1977 is in effect an affirmation
that said decision is correct. As aptly
stated by this Court in the case of Tayag, et al. vs. Yuseco, et al., L-14043,
April 16, 1959, (105 Phil. 488):
“Petitioners herein filed with us a petition for certiorari to
review said decision of the Court of Appeals, but we dismissed said petition
for lack of merit. In other words, we
found said decision to be correct.”
In the said decision dated April 1, 1977,
respondent Court of Appeals, among others, gave due course to respondents’
appeal. Execution of the judgment
appealed from may, therefore, not be allowed while the appeal is pending.
More importantly, the resolutions dated February 13, 1977 and
April 14, 1978 issued by this Court deny for lack of merit the petitioners’
petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated
1 April 1977. A determination of the
merits of the instant petition has, therefore, become purely moot and
academic. As things now stand, the
resolutions above adverted to set firmly the entire core of the instant
petition, and our jurisprudence does not countenance any further lengthy
discussion of the issues raised therein, for it has been held, that this Court
will not decide purely academic questions. (Meralco Workers Union vs. Yatco, 19 SCRA 177; Cruz vs. Tan, 100 Phil. 911,
912-913; Perez vs. Court of Appeals, 101 Phil. 630, 635).
WHEREFORE, this present petition is dismissed for being
moot and academic, and also for lack of merit, without pronouncement as to
costs.
Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.