G.R. No. L-45633




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION 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 and ESTRELLA SUAGA, NICOLAS BRETANA, WARLITO PAPILOTA and ELISEA DIROY, THE HON. MIDPANTAO L. ADIL, The Deputy Provincial Sheriff of Iloilo, RODOLFO S. BESA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION and ROMEO C. ZARRIS, respondents. Ramon A. Gonzales for petitioners. Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala & Cruz for private-respondents. 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 Bretana, 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 caged as Zarris). In the criminal case that followed, private respondent Zarris was acquitted. However, in the Civil Case No. 9941 against private respondent 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 damage 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 Chat (b) since private respondents had failed to submit their record on appeal by October 7, 1976, the decision had become 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 On the same day, December 8, 1976, petitioner Provincial Sheriff attached several trucks of private respondent SMC and ruled their see at public auction on December 7, 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 enjoin 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 Sheriff of Iloilo; 7. The Order dated 7 January 1977, denying petitioners' motion for approval of Record on Appeal, (pp. 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 Appeal 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, l977, 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, tills 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 resolution 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 render in the CASE BELOW. Without pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. (p. 28, 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 all 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 Resolve 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 tor 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 a alleging, among other 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 peals 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 petitioner's 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 review said decision of The Court of Appeals, but we petition for lack of merit. In other words, we found said decision 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, 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 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 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 dismiss 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. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation