ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 136342. August 14, 2000]

PAUL HENDRIK P. TICZON, et al. vs. VIDEO POST MANILA, INC.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 14 2000.

G.R. No. 136342 (Paul Hendrik P. Ticzon, Michael Thomas S. Plana, and Omni Post, vs. Video Post Manila, Inc.)

In its Decision promulgated on June 15, 2000, this Court DENIED the Petition for being moot and academic because the preliminary injunction sought to be invalidated had become functus oficio. In their Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Elevate the Instant Case En Banc, petitioners argue that it was not their fault that the case had become moot. We did not say that it was their fault in the first place. Instead, the point is not who is responsible for the mootness of the case, but rather the issue of mootness itself. In their Petition for Certiorari before the CA, petitioners merely prayed for the annulment of the injunction issued by the trial court. Such prayer could no longer be granted or denied by the appellate court, because the two-year prohibition period of the contract had lapsed. Hence, the injunction itself had expired, and there was nothing more to annul. Our Decision merely affirmed these findings.

Petitioners admit, albeit impliedly, that the case is indeed already moot. However, they invoke our rulings on University of San Agustin, Inc. v. Ca, 1 230 SCRA 761, March 7, 1994. a case which cited Eastern Broadcasting Corporation (DYRE) v. Dans Jr. 2 137 SCRA 628, July 19, 1985.

Their reliance on these cases is misplaced, because the root of the instant matter involved at best an alleged breach of contract and nothing more. We do not see any need to issue guidelines concerning the issues raised in this case. Whether we shall follow the "orthodox" 3 See Eastern Broadcasting Corporation (DYRE) vs. CA, supra. view depends on judicial discretion; more importantly, it is not called for under the circumstances availing here.

Petitioners also insist that the case is not moot because of their claim against the supersedeas bond given by respondent. This claim had not been raised as an issue here, and its resolution is best taken up by the lower court. As we have pointed out in our Decision, we cannot allow petitioners to short-circuit court processes. We have said that respondent's claim for damages is properly addressed to the court a quo. In the same vein, petitioners' claim must be founded on facts properly established before the trial court. They must lay the bases, the foundations, of their own claim. The apprehensions on how the lower court would rule is premature. In any event, they have other remedies, like appeal.

Petitioners also harp on the last sentence of our Decision and argue that we have in effect validated the said preliminary injunction. In our Decision, we made it clear that the issue of validity of the preliminary injunction was already moot and academic. That should be clear enough to them. We stress: the issue of damages and claim against the supersedeas bond are best raised before and decided by the trial court; this Court has not ruled on the validity of Clause 5.

The ancillary Motion to Elevate is plainly unmeritorious, because no legal ground therefor under our existing rules on such matter has been invoked, much less proven.

WHEREFORE, the Motion is DENIED with finality. No further pleadings will be entertained.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE