ManilaEN
BANC
REPARATIONS
COMMISSION,
Petitioner,
G. R. No. L-34697
February 28, 1973
-versus-
THE
HONORABLE JORGE COQUIA,
PRESIDING
JUDGE, BRANCH XI,
COURT OF
FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA
and
ARCADIA MANUFACTURING, INC.,
Respondents.
R
E S O L U T I O N
FERNANDO, J.:
In a pleading
of undue prolixity composed of
228 pages filed on February 11, 1972, petitioner Reparations Commission
filed a suit for certiorari with preliminary injunction against
respondent
Judge and respondent Arcadia Manufacturing Inc. It sought to annul a
Resolution
of respondent Judge dated October 30, 1971, wherein petitioner, as one
of the defendants in Civil Case No. 63518 of the Court of First
Instance
of Manila, was "ordered to respect and comply with the writ of
preliminary
injunction, directing defendants Reparations Commission and all its
representatives
and agents, to refrain from applying to the embroidery plant project of
[Arcadia] any rate of foreign exchange other than the rate of two
Philippine
pesos to one U.S. dollar, as stated in the said preliminary injunction."[1]
It is to be noted that there was a motion for reconsideration filed by
petitioner, but respondent Judge, in another order of December 16,
1971,
likewise sought to be set aside, denied such motion for reconsideration.[2]
This Court, on February 14, 1972, required the respondents to file an
answer.
Such an answer was duly forthcoming after a motion for postponement was
granted, on March 13, 1972. In the aforesaid answer, respondents
already
raised the question of the matter having become moot and academic.
Thus:
"Lastly, the issues posed by the petitioner herein have already become
moot and academic for the reason that even while this answer to the
petition
was under preparation, petitioner had already given due course to the
additional
allocation of U.S. $500,000.00 of respondent Arcadia involved in this
petition,
pursuant to a resolution approved by petitioner on March 6, 1972, to
implement
which, it issued a procurement Order for the acquisition by respondent
Arcadia of the U.S. $500,000.00 worth of machineries and equipment for
an embroidery plant for the 15th year schedule, If only on this score,
the instant petition should already be dismissed as the remedy prayed
for
by the petitioner has already been rendered unnecessary by petitioner's
own action. It would seem to appear then that further action on this
matter
of this Honorable Court will only be a waste of its precious time. Nor
may the remedy of preliminary injunction be prosecuted by the
petitioner
from this Honorable Court since the act sought to be enjoined has
already
been voluntarily performed by petitioner itself."[3]
Such a stand was maintained by respondents in their memorandum of May
4,
1972, when they informed this Tribunal that the Court of Appeals had,
in
a resolution of April 12, 1972, dismissed the appeal taken by the
petitioner
from the decision of the trial court on the merits in Civil Case No.
63518.
They enclosed a copy of such resolution dismissing the appeal.[4]
A twenty-two page memorandum for petitioner was filed five days later
on
May 17, 1972, but there is nothing therein to controvert the allegation
as to the dismissal of the appeal made by respondents. It was given the
opportunity, according to the resolution of this Tribunal of April 25,
1972, to file a reply to such memorandum of petitioner. Such an
opportunity
was not availed of.
Subsequently, on
June 20, 1972, a petition to
dismiss was filed by respondent Arcadia Manufacturing, Inc. It reads
thus:
"1. In the petition at bar, petitioner seeks to annul the orders of
respondent
Judge directing enforcement of the writ of preliminary injunction made
permanent in the decision on the merits of the trial Court in Civil
Case
No. 63518 which the petitioner Reparations Commission as defendant in
the
case had appealed to the Court of Appeals, where the case was docketed
as CA-G.R. No. 49103-R, entitled "Bay Transport, Inc. vs. Reparations
Commission,
et al."; 2. As we have said earlier and manifested to this Honorable
Court
both in our answer and our memorandum, the appeal by petitioner as
defendant
in the said case in which an incident whereof had culminated in the
petition
at bar, has been dismissed by the Hon. Court of Appeals in its extended
resolution of April 12, 1972; 3. The said dismissal of the appeal is
now
final pursuant to a resolution of said Court of Appeals in said Civil
Case
No. 15937 dated May 25, 1972; 4. By reason of the foregoing facts
patent
on the records, the issue raised by the petitioner in the petition at
bar
has become moot and academic as to warrant this Hon. Court to dismiss
the
petition, since the decision of the trial court presided by the
respondent
judge has already become final and executory as if no appeal has been
taken
therefrom and has in so far as said Civil Case No. 63518 of the Court
of
First Instance of Manila is concerned, has become the law of the case."[5]
There is a reiteration in its prayer for the dismissal of the petition
for being moot and academic. Upon being required to comment, petitioner
submitted a pleading on July 13, 1972.cralaw:red
Petitioner's task
in opposing plea of respondent
Arcadia was far from easy. For one thing, it could not successfully
refute
the fact of dismissal of the main case by the Court of Appeals. It
ought
to have known then that the incidental matter of its having to comply
with
and respect the writ of preliminary injunction in question could not
survive.
This is so especially, as the Resolution of the Court of Appeals had
reached
the stage of finality. Its insistence on keeping an aspect thereof
alive
is bereft of support of law. There is no justification then for this
proceeding
being further kept in the docket of this Tribunal, when no useful
purpose
would be served thereby.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, this
petition is dismissed for being
moot and academic.cralaw:red
Concepcion, C.J.,
Makalintal, Zaldivar,
Castro,
Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra, JJ.,
concur.
Teehankee, J., took no part.cralaw:red
__________________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Petition, Annex "EE", 2.
[2]
Ibid., Annex "JJ".
[3]
Answer, 9-10.
[4]
Memorandum for Respondents, Annex A.
[5]
Petition to Dismiss, 1-2. |