EMMANUEL M. LU, ROMMEL M. LU, CARMELA M. LU, KAREN GRACE P. LU AND JAMES MICHAEL LU PETITIONERS, VS. MARISSA LU CHIONG AND CRISTINA LU NG, RESPONDENTS.

Lu versus Lu Chiong

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Emmanuel Lu, Rommel Lu, Carmela Lu, Karen Grace Lu, and James Michael Lu against their relatives Marissa Lu Chiong and Cristina Lu Ng. The dispute began as two corporate suits in the Regional Trial Court of Calamba City, Laguna, sitting as a Special Commercial Court, questioning how the stockholders' meetings and elections of directors and officers of Remcor Industrial and Manufacturing Corporation and Soutech Development Corporation were conducted on March 4, 2014. The case matters to a reviewee because it settles two things at once: the effect of a judge's voluntary inhibition, and the rule that the mere pendency of a special civil action for certiorari does not interrupt the proceedings in the lower court, so that a later judgment in the main case can render the certiorari petition moot and academic.

Procedural History

The respondents filed two complaints for nullification of the stockholders' meeting, election of directors and officers, general information sheet and minutes of meeting, with damages and applications for injunctive relief, against the petitioners. Both were raffled to Branch 34 of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba City, Laguna, as a Special Commercial Court, presided over by Judge Maria Florencia Formes-Baculo. During the pendency of the actions, the respondents moved for the judge's inhibition, alleging bias and prejudgment. On February 18, 2015, Judge Formes-Baculo granted the twin motions, voluntarily inhibiting and recusing herself, while denying that she was biased and holding in abeyance the pending incidents so as to give a free hand to the new court.

The respondents then filed with the Court of Appeals a consolidated petition for certiorari and prohibition. On September 11, 2015, the Court of Appeals granted the petition, reversed and set aside the twin orders of inhibition, and ordered the cases returned to Branch 34 for speedy trial and disposition. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, raising four grounds: that the petition was fatally defective for lack of certified true copies of the assailed orders; that mandamus, not certiorari, was the proper remedy; that the issue had been rendered moot by the consolidated decision of Branch 35 of the same court dated July 13, 2015, which had already resolved the main issues; and that the judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. On December 14, 2015, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration. Hence the petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

The respondents, Marissa Lu Chiong and Cristina Lu Ng, challenged the manner by which the stockholders' meetings and elections of directors and officers of Remcor and Soutech were conducted on March 4, 2014. Their two complaints were raffled to Branch 34 of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba City, Laguna, a Special Commercial Court presided over by Judge Formes-Baculo. During the pendency of the actions, the respondents asked the judge to recuse herself, citing her grant of the petitioners' applications for preliminary injunction, an alleged appearance of prejudgment and partiality, and her referral of the cases to Judicial Dispute Resolution instead of promptly resolving the petitioners' urgent motions.

On February 18, 2015, Judge Formes-Baculo granted the motions to inhibit in both cases. She explained that the inhibition would dispel any notion of prejudgment and partiality, though she denied the allegation of bias and maintained that all incidents had been resolved on the basis of the evidence submitted. She held the pending motions and pleadings in abeyance so as to give a free hand to the new court, and directed that the records be sent to the Office of the Clerk of Court.

When the Judicial Dispute Resolution failed, the cases were assigned, without need of raffle under the rules, to Branch 35 of the same court as the pairing court to the regular special commercial court. On July 13, 2015, Branch 35 rendered a consolidated decision dismissing the complaints for lack of merit, upholding the validity of the stockholders' meetings and elections held on March 4, 2014, dismissing the petitioners' counterclaims for damages, and recalling and setting aside the writs of preliminary injunction previously issued. That decision came before the Court of Appeals issued its own decision and resolution in the certiorari case. The respondents themselves later brought the consolidated decision on appeal, on grounds unrelated to the inhibition.

Issues

• Whether or not the consolidated decision of Branch 35 of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba City, which finally disposed of the main issues in the two corporate cases, rendered the petition for certiorari and prohibition moot and academic.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court's orders granting the judge's voluntary inhibition instead of dismissing the petition on the ground of mootness.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, which the Court of Appeals invoked in declaring the orders of inhibition contrary to law, provides:

Section 1. Disqualification of judges. No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniary interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise, or in which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to the rules of civil law, or in which he has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review, without the written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the record.

This provision defines the grounds for compulsory disqualification and supplies the standard against which the Court of Appeals measured the judge's voluntary inhibition.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled in the affirmative and granted the petition. The promulgation on July 13, 2015 by Branch 35 of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba City of the consolidated decision that finally disposed of the main issues in the two cases had rendered the certiorari petition moot and academic. Instead of issuing its decision and resolution, the Court of Appeals should have dismissed the petition on the ground of mootness. The Court held that Branch 35 was with authority to proceed with the main actions notwithstanding the pendency of the certiorari petition, citing the settled rule that the mere pendency of a special civil action for certiorari commenced in relation to a case pending before a lower court does not automatically interrupt the proceedings in the lower court. Jurisdiction over the main actions attached to the Regional Trial Court of Calamba City, not to its branches or judges, and the different branches did not possess jurisdictions independent of and incompatible with each other.

The Court stressed that the consolidated decision was promulgated before the Court of Appeals could have issued the decision and resolution subject of the petition. The mootness was evident from the fact that the appellate court's subsequent order was for the return of the records to Branch 34 for speedy trial and disposition, something that Branch 35 had apparently already accomplished. The resolution of the main actions remained the ultimate end that should result from the appellate court's disposition of the certiorari case. The Court also noted that the consolidated decision had been brought on appeal by the respondents themselves, on grounds unrelated to the inhibition, and that the remand ordered by the Court of Appeals in that separate appeal did not invalidate the authority of Branch 35 to take over the two cases.

On the second issue, the Court held that the ground of mootness was sufficient to justify the grant of the petition, rendering it unnecessary to rule on the merits of the other grounds invoked. It recalled the definition it had reiterated in King versus Court of Appeals:

An issue is said to have become moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy so that a declaration on the issue would be of no practical use or value.

As a rule, courts decline jurisdiction over such actions, or dismiss them on the ground of mootness. The Court therefore found no need to pass upon the correctness of the Court of Appeals' ruling that the voluntary inhibition was contrary to Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court.

Doctrine

A judge's voluntary inhibition is a matter committed to the judge's sound discretion, but the propriety of that inhibition is not the only gate through which a certiorari petition must pass. The controlling rule a Bar candidate must retain is that the mere pendency of a special civil action for certiorari commenced in relation to a case pending before a lower court does not automatically interrupt the proceedings in the lower court. Jurisdiction over the main action attaches to the court as an institution, not to its branches or judges, and the branches do not possess jurisdictions independent of and incompatible with each other. Consequently, when the lower court renders a final judgment in the main case before the appellate court resolves the certiorari petition, the petition is rendered moot and academic, because it ceases to present a justiciable controversy and any declaration on the issue would be of no practical use or value. Courts then decline jurisdiction and dismiss the petition on the ground of mootness, without reaching the merits of the other grounds raised.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution were reversed and set aside, and a new one was entered dismissing the respondents' petition for certiorari and prohibition on the ground of mootness.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the mere pendency of a special civil action for certiorari does not interrupt the proceedings in the lower court, so a judgment in the main case can moot the petition. Examiners like to use this case on the effects of a judge's voluntary inhibition and on mootness as a ground for dismissing a certiorari petition.