G.R. No. 82405-06




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 82405-06 November 24, 1988 BANQUE DEL' INDOCHINE ET DE SUEZ and BANQUE FRANCAIS DU COMMERCE EXTERIEUR, petitioners, vs. HON. RAMON AM. TORRES, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Cebu City (Branch VII), HON. RICARDO DIAZ, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Manila (Branch XXVIII), CEBU SHIPYARD AND ENGINEERING WORKS, INC., SEVEN BROTHERS SHIPPING CORPORATION, YU HUE, JOHNNY YU, THE PHILIPPINE COAST GUARD, BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY, HON. REGINO T. VERIDIANO II, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Manila (Branch XXXI), Deputy Sheriff RAMON G. ENRIQUEZ, PN Captain NAPOLEON C. BAYLON, GENSTAR CONTAINER CORPORATION, JOSE SISON, STARSHIP SHIPPING AGENCIES, INC., EXPRESS TRANSPORT CORPORATION, and MARITIME COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. Ponce Enrile, Cayetano, Reyes & Manalastas for petitioners. Ramon Y Gargantos for respondent Maritime Co. of the Phils. Bito, Lozada, Ortega & Castillo for respondents Torres, Diaz, Seven Bros. Shipping Corp., Yu Hue and Johnny Yu. Juan R. Reynaldo, Jr., for respondent Phil. Coast Guard. Sison, Ortiz & Associates for respondent Genstar Container Corp. PARAS, J.: Where a supervening circumstance has rendered the petition moot and academic for all practical purposes, the petition should be dismissed (Dirampaten v. Alonto, 22 SCRA 1083). The reason for this is: ... the well established principle that "courts exist to decide actual controversies, and do not give opinions on abstract propositions and moot cases" (1 Moran's Rules of Court, 1970 Ed., p.4; see Garron v. Arca 88 Phil. 490) and that "it is a rule of almost universal application that courts of justice, constituted to pass upon substantial rights, will not consider questions in which no actual interests are involved; they decline jurisdiction of moot cases." (In re Estate of Caballos, 12 Phil. 271; Central Bank v. Vasquez, 42 SCRA 530, 534). The foregoing doctrine comes into play in the case at bar. The matter in dispute is the controversial MV "Mayon," a vessel registered under the laws and flag of the Republic of Panama. The otherwise very simple question of who is entitled to its possession was made complicated by the filing, by several claimants, of various cases before different courts in the Philippines. Indeed, there are several claimants to the MV "Mayon." The Cebu Shipyard and Engineering Works, Inc. (Cebu Shipyard, for short) filed on May 18,1984, a collection suit, grounded on an alleged mechanic's lien for the repair of five (5) vessels that included MV "Mayon," against the Maritime Company of the Philippines (MCP, for short) before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, which was docketed therein as Civil Case No. CEB-2225. The herein petitioners, Banque de L'Indochine et de Suez and Banque Francais du Commerce Exterieur, two (2) of the strongest commercial banks in France, intervened in the said Cebu case to assert their alleged mortgage rights over the vessel. Judge Torres in this Cebu case eventually issued an Order directing the sale at public auction of MV "Mayon." Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation who allegedly also incurred expenses for the "rebuilding, repair and remodelling of the vessel" was the highest bidder. Against the Order of Judge Torres directing the sale at public auction of MV "Mayon," Banque de L'Indochine et de Suez and Banque Francais Du Commerce Exterieur went on certiorari to the Court of Appeals (AC-G.R. SP No. 06937). The Court of Appeals nullified the auction sale in favor of Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation. But still pending in the Cebu case are the interventions by other Philippine claimants, namely: (a) Benpaz Port Services, Inc. for P303,292.47 representing stevedoring, checking and allied port services; (b) Republic of the Philippines for at least P20,693,537.54 representing tax liabilities; (c) General Maritime Services Union for P3,145,755.60 representing unpaid wages, termination pay and other labor benefits; (d) Philippine Ports Authority for P1,202,412.40 representing harbor and anchorage fees; (e) Candelario Aller and Wilfred Vasquez for P179,323.00 representing wages and overtime pay of Customs guards; (f) Angelo M. Esmane, Mamerto S. Salaver and Mansueto T. Manong for P75,806.10 representing final award by the National Labor Relations Commission of salaries and wages. Thus, in denying for the time being motions for the dismissal of the Cebu case, the Hon. Judge Torres ruled that dismissing the case would "outrightly deny the intervenors-claimants their only hope of relief from the court ..." (Order dated Feb. 16, 1988, Civil Case No. CEB-2225, Annex 2 Comment). For its part, however, and with the setting aside of the public auction sale of the MV "Mayon" in favor of Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation, petitioners withdrew their intervention in the Cebu case. But petitioner Banque de L'Indochine et de Suez, filed an admiralty suit before the Regional Trial Court of Makati which was docketed as Civil Case No. 17909 against the MV "Mayon" and Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation for the possession of the vessel so that it can enforce what it claims to be its mortgage rights pursuant to Sec. 14 of PD 1521, otherwise known as the Ship Mortgage Decree of 1978. The Seven Brothers Shipping Corporation, on the other hand, filed a civil suit for damages, with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 27, presided over by Judge Ricardo Diaz, against petitioner Banque de L'Indochine et de Suez, as well as Fredo Clemo and the Malayan Towage, the husbanding agent and tug company, respectively, of petitioner. This case, docketed as Civil Case No. 87-42758 was for reimbursement of expenses Seven Brothers allegedly incurred in engineering and coordinating the interception of MV "Mayon" by the Cebu sheriff. By way of provisional relief, Seven Brothers sought preliminary injunction to enjoin petitioner Banque de L'Indochine et de Suez from foreclosing the mortgage on the vessel. The instant petition was filed for the same purpose to enable the petitioners to take possession of the MV "Mayon." In fact, this is a primary prayer in their petition, thus: 1. ... directing Seven Brothers to deliver possession of the subject vessel to petitioners Banque Indosuez, or at the very least, to the Philippine Coast Guard or the Bureau of Customs for safekeeping and maintenance of said vessel for the benefit of all parties subject to the outcome of the case. (p. 90, Petition). Additionally, petitioners prayed as follows: e) Declaring petitioner Banque Indosuez entitled to the possession of the vessel and directing whoever is in possession of the vessel to deliver, or allow Banque Indosuez to take delivery of, the vessel, preparatory to Banque Indosuez's foreclosure of its preferred mortgage on the vessel. (p. 91, Ibid.) Admittedly, and by some supervening event, the MV "Mayon" was taken outside Philippine jurisdiction. It is now in Taiwan. By petitioners' own admission "because of its present condition, the MV "Mayon" can no longer be returned to the Philippines." (par. 5, 1, Manifestation and Motion for Modification of Resolution). Also, according to petitioners, they have commenced a proceeding in Taiwan to arrest the "Mayon" (par. 17, Urgent Supplemental Petition). Basic is the rule that special remedies such as those sought by petitioners are available only if there is no other ordinary, speedy and adequate relief available. Obviously, such relief can be obtained from the Taiwan court. There is no question that the parties responsible for the fraudulent removal of the MV "Mayon" from Philippine waters should be punished. But such punishment can be meted to the wrongdoers without the Court having to go through the futile exercise of deciding who among the claimants should have possession over a vessel they can not possess here. The parties may argue no end about the validity, or lack of it, of certain judicial proceedings taken by the Manila Court, Makati Court, Cebu Court or any other Philippine court. But the bone of contention-which party has the right to the possession of the vessel- cannot be resolved with practical reliefs to the parties because the vessel is not, and can no longer be, within the jurisdiction of the Philippine courts. As this Court said in one case, "an adjudication of the procedural issues presented for resolution would be a futile exercise in exegesis." (Muñoz v. Bagasao, 44 SCRA 525). WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed for being moot and academic. SO ORDERED. Melencio-Herrera (Chairman), Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation