Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > August 2011 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 173098 : August 17, 2011] ANGELINA AZUL V. POLILLO NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL, REPRESENTED BY ITS PTA PRESIDENT, ROSARIO C. DE JESUS AND PRINCIPAL, LYDIA P. SALVOSA:

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated 17 August 2011 which reads as follows:

G.R. No. 173098 � Angelina Azul v. Polillo National High School, represented by its PTA President, Rosario C. de Jesus and Principal, Lydia P. Salvosa

When an action no longer presents a justiciable controversy, the issues involved become moot or academic.^[1] Hence, any declaration on these issues would have no practical use or value.^[2]

For Resolution is the Manifestation/Motion^[3] dated February 16, 200 9 filed by petitioner Angelina Azul (Azul) praying for the dismissal of the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari^[4] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in view of the Order^[5] dated November 28, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Infanta, Quezon, Branch 65, dismissing Civil Case No. 582-1 for lack of jurisdiction.

Factual Antecedents

On November 27, 2003, respondent Polillo National High School, represented by its Parents and Teachers Association (PTA) President Rosario C. De Jesus and Principal Lydia P. Salvosa, filed a Complaint^[6] for Recovery of Possession and Damages against Azul. Respondent alleged that petitioner is illegally occupying a portion of its 10,000-square meter property and that demands to vacate the same remained unheeded. The case was raffled to Branch 65 of the RTC of Infanta, Quezon, and docketed as Civil Case No. 582-1. In response, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss^[7] under Section l(d),^[8] Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner contended that the PTA President and the Principal have no legal capacity to represent the respondent since they were not authorized by the Municipal School Board of Polillo, Quezon.

On August 24, 2004, the RTC denied^[9]  petitioner's Motion to Dismiss citing Section 3,^[10] Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner moved for reconsideration^[11] but the same was denied in a Resolution^[12] dated October 19, 2004.

Unfazed, petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a Petition for Certiorari  under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 87810. The CA, however, found no grave abuse on the part of the RTC.^[13]

Thus, petitioner filed the instant Petition.

However, pending the resolution of this Petition, petitioner filed a Manifestation/Motion praying that the Petition be dismissed in view of the RTC Order dated November 28, 2008 dismissing the Complaint for Recovery of Possession with Damages for lack of jurisdiction.

Our Ruling 

We resolve to grant the Manifestion/Motion.

Under Section 3, Rule 3 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, we cannot, as a rule, take cognizance of moot and academic questions.^[14]

In this case, the dismissal of the Complaint for Recovery of Possession rendered moot and academic the issue of whether the PTA President and the Principal of the respondent school have the legal capacity to sue on behalf of the respondent school. For this reason, we are constrained to dismiss the instant Petition.

WHEREFORE, petitioner's Manifestation/Motion is hereby GRANTED. The Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby DISMISSED, and the case is hereby CLOSED  and TERMINATED.

SO ORDERED.  

Villarama, J., no part.
Carpio, J., additional member per raffle dated 15 August 2011.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Natal v. Caballes, G.R. No. 191963, December 1, 2010.

^[2] Philippine Computer Solutions, Inc. v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 168776, July 17, 2007, 527 SCRA 809. 821. 

^[3] Rollo, pp. 122-123. 

^[4] Id. at 10-24. 

^[5] Id. at 124-125: penned by Judge Arnelo C. Mesa. 

^[6] Id. at 25-30. 

^[7] Id. at 38-40. 

^[8] Section 1. Grounds. � Within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following grounds:

x x x x 

(d) That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;

x x x x

^[9] Rollo, p. 43.

^[10] SEC. 3. Representatives as parties. � Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed the real party in interest. A representative may be a trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules. An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the principal except when the contract involves things belonging to the principal.

^[11] Rollo, pp. 44-46.

^[12] Id. at 47.

^[13] Decision dated January 31, 2006 and Resolution dated June 6, 2006, penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao and concurred in by Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (now a Member of this Court) and Edgardo F. Sundiam. Id. at 60-65 and 72-73.

^[14] SEC. 3. Advisory opinions proscribed. � The Court cannot issue advisory opinions on the state and meaning of laws, or take cognizance of moot and academic questions, subject only to notable exceptions involving constitutional issues.