THE HEIRS OF SILVINO S. UMAHAG, NAMELY: SONIA SUYAT, ROSALINA DECOY AND SILVINO UMAHAG I, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 25, KORONADAL CITY, SOUTH COTABATO, …

Heirs of Umahag versus Regional Trial Court of Koronadal City

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, brought by the Heirs of Silvino S. Umahag — Sonia Suyat, Rosalina Decoy, and Silvino Umahag I — against the Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, of Koronadal City, South Cotabato, and against the private respondents Atty. Wilfredo Diel, Atty. Cecile Diel, and the Heirs of Rebecca Sira. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to annul two orders issued in Civil Case Number 1628-25: an order dated 18 November 2011 issued by Acting Judge Roberto L. Ayco, and a resolution dated 30 January 2014 issued by Presiding Judge Renato V. Tampac. The case matters because it shows how the Supreme Court treats a petition that has been overtaken by the very proceedings it complains of — where the relief sought has become moot and academic, the petition must fail.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with an Application for a Temporary Restraining Order under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, seeking to annul the order of 18 November 2011 and the resolution of 30 January 2014, both issued by the Regional Trial Court of Koronadal City in Civil Case Number 1628-25. In compliance with a minute resolution of the Supreme Court dated 18 August 2014, the private respondents filed a Compliance informing the Court that the public respondent had conducted further proceedings in Civil Case Number 1628-25, which rendered the petitioners' application for a temporary restraining order moot and academic. The private respondents then filed their Comments on the Petition on 20 October 2014. The Court noted that the propriety of suspending the proceedings in Civil Case Number 1628-25 was the very issue to be resolved on the merits of the Petition, and so it submitted the case for decision together with the application for injunctive relief. The Court also noted that respondent Land Bank of the Philippines filed no Comment despite notice, and that the petitioners filed neither a manifestation as to supervening events nor a reply to the private respondents' Comments. The case was then submitted for decision without any comment from Land Bank of the Philippines.

Facts

The petitioners are the Heirs of Silvino S. Umahag, namely Sonia Suyat, Rosalina Decoy, and Silvino Umahag I. They were parties in Civil Case Number 1628-25 before Branch 25 of the Regional Trial Court of Koronadal City, South Cotabato. In the course of that case, the trial court issued an order dated 18 November 2011 through Acting Judge Roberto L. Ayco, and later a resolution dated 30 January 2014 through Presiding Judge Renato V. Tampac.

Aggrieved, the petitioners came to the Supreme Court by a Petition for Certiorari with an Application for a Temporary Restraining Order under Rule 65, seeking to annul both issuances. They also sought to restrain the trial court from proceeding further in Civil Case Number 1628-25.

While the petition was pending, however, the trial court conducted further proceedings in Civil Case Number 1628-25. The private respondents — Atty. Wilfredo Diel, Atty. Cecile Diel, and the Heirs of Rebecca Sira — reported this to the Court in their Compliance, and took the position that the petitioners' application for a temporary restraining order had thereby been rendered moot and academic. The private respondents filed their Comments, Land Bank of the Philippines filed none, and the petitioners filed neither a manifestation as to supervening events nor a reply.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for certiorari may still be resolved on the merits, or whether the further proceedings conducted by the trial court in Civil Case Number 1628-25 have rendered the relief sought moot and academic.
• Whether or not the application for a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief may still be granted.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court governs the petition, which the petitioners filed as a Petition for Certiorari with Application for Temporary Restraining Order. It is the procedural vehicle by which the petitioners sought to annul the trial court's order and resolution.

Section 1. Petition for certiorari. — When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

This is the provision under which the petitioners sought annulment of the order of 18 November 2011 and the resolution of 30 January 2014.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court did not reach the merits of the annulment prayed for. It recorded that the public respondent had conducted further proceedings in Civil Case Number 1628-25, which rendered the petitioners' application for a temporary restraining order moot and academic. Because the propriety of suspending the proceedings in Civil Case Number 1628-25 was the very issue to be resolved on the merits, and because the case had been submitted for decision together with the application for injunctive relief, the Court resolved the petition on that footing. It noted the private respondents' Compliance and Comments, noted that Land Bank of the Philippines filed no Comment despite notice, and noted that the petitioners filed neither a manifestation as to supervening events nor a reply.

On the second issue, the application for injunctive relief necessarily fell with the petition, since the proceedings the petitioners sought to restrain had already been conducted. The Court accordingly submitted the case for decision without any comment from Land Bank of the Philippines.

Doctrine

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 lies only where a tribunal has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Where, pending the petition, the trial court conducts the very proceedings the petitioner seeks to restrain, the application for a temporary restraining order is rendered moot and academic, and the Court will not grant injunctive relief. A petitioner who fails to file a manifestation as to supervening events or a reply to the private respondents' comments leaves the Court with no basis to disregard the supervening proceedings. The rule to retain is that mootness defeats the ancillary relief, and the Court decides the case on the record as it stands.

Disposition

The Court noted the private respondents' Compliance and Comments, noted that Land Bank of the Philippines filed no Comment, and submitted the petition for decision without any comment from Land Bank of the Philippines, the application for injunctive relief having been rendered moot and academic by the further proceedings in Civil Case Number 1628-25.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing: further proceedings in the court below render the application for a temporary restraining order moot and academic, and the Court will submit the case for decision on that basis. Examiners use this case to test Rule 65 procedure — mootness of ancillary relief, and the consequence of a petitioner's failure to file a manifestation as to supervening events or a reply.