Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1957 > February 1957 Decisions > G.R. No. L-9515 February 20, 1957 - MARIA B. CASTRO v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

100 Phil 910:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-9515. February 20, 1957.]

MARIA B. CASTRO, Petitioner, v. HON. BIENVENIDO A. TAN, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XIII and WILLIAM L. BURR, Respondents.

Rosendo Tansinsin for Petitioner.

Jose Ma. Recto and Paterno R. Canlas for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. COURTS; MOOT QUESTIONS; NOT WITHIN THE FUNCTION OF COURT TO ACT UPON AND DECIDE. — As general rule, it is not within the function of a court to act upon and decide a moot question or speculative, theoretical, or abstract question or proposition, or a purely academic question, . . . The application of the rule that a court will not determine moot questions or abstract propositions has resulted in other expression or rules to the effect that the court will not express an opinion in a case in which no practical relief can be granted, or which can have no practical effect; . . . ." (1 C.J.S. pp. 1013-1015.)


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.:


In a detainer suit in the Manila municipal court, William L. Burr was ordered to pay Maria B. Castro accrued rents amounting to P9,225 plus P1,000 as attorneys fees.

Burr appealed to the Court of First Instance and filed a supersedeas bond in the amount of P10,225 "to secure the payment to the plaintiff (Castro) of the rents, damages and costs adjudicated to the plaintiff in the appealed decision up to the rendition thereof in the event the said decision be affirmed by the appellate court." It was subscribed by him as principal, and by the Associated Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. as surety.

After a regular hearing, the Hon. Bienvenido A. Tan, Judge of the Manila court of first instance, found that full enjoyment of his mental-faculties. It should be stated reversed the decision, and awarded Burr P2,000 as attorneys fees to be paid by plaintiff after deducting the corresponding rent for five days. About a week later, Burr submitted a motion to cancel the supersedeas bond, for being functus officio, in view of the decision favorable to him, Maria B. Castro objected, contending that the Court’s decision had not yet become final, and that the bond answered for rents "down to the time of final judgment in the action."

The judge granted the motion explaining (1) there was no reason for the bond to subsist, inasmuch as the decision it sought to stay had become functus officio and (2) the supersedeas bond should continue only when "it is the defendant who appeals from the decision of the court of first instance" — which was not the case.

Having failed in a motion to reconsider, Maria B. Castro instituted this special civil action to vacate the order of cancellation, alleging want of jurisdiction and/or abuse of discretion.

Thereafter she brought to the Court of Appeals the main case, insisting on her right to collect rents. And she won: she got in that Court judgment for rents in the sum of P9,225. But the quashing of the bond was not discussed in such appeal.

Answering the complaint before us, William L. Burr as respondent defended his co-respondent’s order on the very grounds hereinbefore stated. He also argued that petitioner should have appealed the order in due time to the Court of Appeals, instead of starting this new litigation.

One thing is noticeable: the Associated Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. is not a party before this Court. Therefore any judgment in this case revoking Judge Tan’s order and/or reviving the supersedeas bond will not affect said Surety Co. To direct its inclusion will not do; because, as to such surety the cancellation order has become final long ago.

On the other hand, a judgment herein against Burr would entail no material advantage to petitioner. Bond or no bond, she is entitled to recover rents from him in accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Now, then, as the other respondent is merely a nominal party, the issues framed for our resolution become no more than academic, of no practical effect.

". . ., as a general rule it is not within the function of a court to act upon and decide a moot question or speculative, theoretical, or abstract question or proposition, or a purely academic question, . . . .

The application of the rule that a court will not determine moot questions or abstract propositions has resulted in other expressions or rules to the effect that the court will not express an opinion in a case in which no practical relief can be granted, or which can have no practical effect; . . . ." (1 C. J. S. pp. 1013-1015.)

This case is moot and should be, as it is hereby dismissed 1 without costs. So ordered.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Garduño v. Diaz, 46 Phil. 472; Moon v. Harison, 43 Phil. 28; Yu Sio v. Court of Appeals, 47 Off. Gaz. 5078.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1957 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-9274 February 1, 1957 - RUFINO LOPEZ & SONS v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    100 Phil 850

  • G.R. No. L-9566 February 4, 1967

    MARCOS MACLANG v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    100 Phil 858

  • G.R. No. L-5835 February 8, 1957 - IN RE: CARMEN GO DE SERO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    100 Phil 867

  • G.R. No. L-8840 February 8, 1957 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JOSE C. ZULUETA, ET AL.

    100 Phil 872

  • G.R. No. L-9354 February 15, 1957 - CASILDA M. VDA. DE MEJIA v. MARY H. LOHLA, ET AL.

    100 Phil 879

  • G.R. No. L-10918 February 15, 1957 - CLARO R. ROBLES v. VICENTE DEL ROSARIO

    100 Phil 886

  • G.R. No. L-8947 February 20, 1957 - JULIAN F. GONZAGA, ET AL. v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION

    100 Phil 892

  • G.R. No. L-9515 February 20, 1957 - MARIA B. CASTRO v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    100 Phil 910

  • G.R. No. L-7041 February 21, 1957 - JESUS MA. CUI v. ANTONIO MA. CUI

    100 Phil 913

  • G.R. No. L-7922 February 22, 1957 - RECREATION AND AMUSEMENT ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CITY OF MANILA

    100 Phil 950

  • G.R. No. L-8065 February 25, 1957 - ELIGIO NARAG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    100 Phil 958

  • G.R. No. L-10274 February 27, 1957 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. VENANCIO B. AQUINO

    100 Phil 961

  • G.R. No. L-11425 February 27, 1957 - JOVENCIO A. REYES, ET AL. v. NICASIO YATCO

    100 Phil 964

  • G.R. No. L-8331 February 28, 1957 - LOURDES A. BORBON v. CRESENCIA MANARANG

    100 Phil 970

  • G.R. No. L-8414 February 28, 1957 - MANGHARAM B. HEMMANI v. EXPORT CONTROL COMMITTEE

    100 Phil 973

  • G.R. No. L-8429 February 28, 1957 - MARIA B. CASTRO v. SILVERIO BLAQUERA

    100 Phil 981

  • G.R. No. L-10520 February 28, 1957 - LORENZO M. TAÑADA, ET AL. v. MARIANO JESUS CUENCO

    103 Phil 1051

  • G.R. No. L-8465 February 28, 1957 - AGAPITO FRANCISCO ET AL. v. NATIONAL URBAN PLANNING COMMISSION

    100 Phil 984

  • G.R. Nos. L-8901-02 February 28, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE BELGA

    100 Phil 996

  • G.R. No. L-8922-24 February 28, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO ENGUERO

    100 Phil 1001

  • G.R. No. L-8933 February 28, 1957 - SILVERIO UMBAO v. SANTIAGO YAP

    100 Phil 1008

  • G.R. No. L-8990 February 28, 1957 - MARTINA SAMUDIO, ET AL. v. MUNICIPALITY OF GAINZA

    100 Phil 1013

  • G.R. No. L-9205 February 28, 1957 - JACINTA ABELLA v. G.K. COBUN KIM

    100 Phil 1019

  • G.R. No. L-9699 February 28, 1957 - LIBERATO JIMENEZ v. GUILLERMO B. FRANCISCO

    100 Phil 1025

  • G.R. No. L-10016 February 28, 1957 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PROCESO S. ARAGON

    100 Phil 1033