March 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > March 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 177005 : March 10, 2010] ATTY. RODOLFO S. DE JESUS V. COURT OF APPEALS. :
[G.R. No. 177005 : March 10, 2010]
ATTY. RODOLFO S. DE JESUS V. COURT OF APPEALS.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated March 10, 2010
G.R. No. 177005 - ATTY. RODOLFO S. DE JESUS v. COURT OF APPEALS. - The petitioner seeks via his petition for mandamus to compel the Court of Appeals (Former Seventh Division) to resolve his motion for reconsideration assailing the decision dated May 26, 2005 promulgated in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 84902.
Under Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, a petition for mandamus may be filed when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station. The remedy of mandamus is employed only to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, this being its main objective. Mandamus is an extraordinary writ and discretionary remedy, and should not be granted when it will achieve no beneficial result, such as when the act sought to be compelled has been performed.[1]
There is no dispute that the Court of Appeals already resolved the petitioner's motion for reconsideration by denying it through the Resolution dated August 6, 2008. Thereby, the petitioner's petition for mandamus has no more useful purpose. The objective for which the writ of mandamus is being sought has been attained. Hence, the remedy has become unavailing,
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to dismiss the petition for mandamus for being moot.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Chairperson, Honorable Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, Working Chairperson, Honorable Justices Teresita Leonardo de Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin, and Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Members, First Division, this 10lh day of March 2010.
G.R. No. 177005 - ATTY. RODOLFO S. DE JESUS v. COURT OF APPEALS. - The petitioner seeks via his petition for mandamus to compel the Court of Appeals (Former Seventh Division) to resolve his motion for reconsideration assailing the decision dated May 26, 2005 promulgated in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 84902.
Under Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, a petition for mandamus may be filed when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station. The remedy of mandamus is employed only to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, this being its main objective. Mandamus is an extraordinary writ and discretionary remedy, and should not be granted when it will achieve no beneficial result, such as when the act sought to be compelled has been performed.[1]
There is no dispute that the Court of Appeals already resolved the petitioner's motion for reconsideration by denying it through the Resolution dated August 6, 2008. Thereby, the petitioner's petition for mandamus has no more useful purpose. The objective for which the writ of mandamus is being sought has been attained. Hence, the remedy has become unavailing,
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to dismiss the petition for mandamus for being moot.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Chairperson, Honorable Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, Working Chairperson, Honorable Justices Teresita Leonardo de Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin, and Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Members, First Division, this 10lh day of March 2010.
Very truly yours
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
�(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Philippine Coconut Authority v. Pritnex Coco Products, Inc., G.R. No, 163088, 20 July 2006, 495 SCRA 763, 782.
