Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > May 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-25271 May 31, 1982 - REPARATIONS COMMISSION v. GUILLERMO SANTOS, ET AL.

199 Phil. 339:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-25271. May 31, 1982.]

THE REPARATIONS COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. HON. GUILLERMO SANTOS, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and GIL J. PUYAT, personally and in his capacity as President of the Nacionalista Party, Respondents.

Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz and Solicitor Camilo D. Quiason for Petitioner.

Jose W. Diokno, Claudio Teehankee and Felix Q. Antonio for Respondents.

SYNOPSIS


Private respondent, in a petition for certiorari. prohibition and mandamus filed with the Court of First Instance to annul a resolution of the petitioner approving, among others, the proposed award and procurement contract with Toyo Trading Company, Ltd., for the supply of fire fighting equipment, was able to secure the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and a supplementary writ. When petitioner failed to secure the dissolution of the injunctive writs, it filed the present Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, but the Supreme Court did not issue the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for by petitioner but instead advised it to seek its remedy from the court a quo. Thus upon motion of petitioner asking for the dissolution of the writs of injunction, respondent court dissolved the writs of injunction despite private respondent’s opposition. The Supreme Court likewise denied private respondent’s motion/petition to restrain the trial court’s dissolution order. Subsequently, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss this petition in view of the dissolution of the writs of injunction.

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding that the same has become moot and academic.


SYLLABUS


REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION; MOOT AND ACADEMIC WHERE THE QUESTIONED WRITS HAD BEEN DISSOLVED. — The dissolution of the writ of preliminary and supplementary preliminary injunction assailed in a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction has rendered said petition moot and academic warranting the dismissal thereof.


D E C I S I O N


GUERRERO, J.:


This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction filed by the Reparations Commission, represented herein by the Office of the Solicitor General, questioning the propriety of the issuance by the Court of First Instance of Manila of a writ of preliminary injunction and supplemental writ of preliminary injunction in Civil Case No. 62643 entitled "Gil J. Puyat, personally and in his capacity as President of the Nacionalista Party, Petitioner, v. The Reparations Commission, Respondent."cralaw virtua1aw library

It appears that herein respondent Gil J. Puyat filed in the Court below a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus seeking:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

a. to annul Resolution No. 291 (65) adopted by the Reparations Commission on September 10, 1965, in which it resolved to approve:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. the proposed award to, and the proposed procurement contract with, Toyo Trading Co., Ltd., for the supply of the firefighting equipment applied for by the Philippine Agency, National Civil Defense Administration, under the Ninth Year Reparations Schedule, and

2. The proposed award to, and the proposed contract with, R.J. del Pan (Japan) K.K. for inspection and testing services on said equipment for the total fee of $1,011.64.

b. to prohibit the Reparations Commission from allowing the Philippine Mission in Japan to conclude the aforementioned contracts; from undertaking any further steps on the procurement orders issued for goods and services to be acquired for non-revenue producing government projects, the total value of which exceed 10% of the Ninth Year Reparations Schedule; and from issuing any other procurement orders on said projects or in any manner negotiating or concluding a contract for the procurement of goods or services for said projects; and

c. to compel the Reparations Commission to comply with Section 2(a) of the Reparations Law. 1

As prayed for, respondent Court of First Instance issued on September 24, 1965 a writ of preliminary injunction ordering the "Reparations Commission and all (its) attorneys, representatives, agents and any other person assisting (it) (to) refrain from doing the acts complained of . . ." 2 On October 16, 1965, respondent Court issued a supplementary writ of preliminary injunction ordering the Commission "to secure the return of the 30% advance payment made to the Toyo Trading Co., Ltd. of Japan and to refrain from taking any further step or action in connection with the Commission’s enjoined contract with said company, particularly from making any other payments or accepting any deliveries of any equipment under said contract." 3

Failing to secure the dissolution of the aforementioned injunctive writs in the lower Court, the Reparations Commission lodged the instant Petition on November 4, 1965. Private respondent Puyat filed his Answer, and after hearing on petitioner’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, this Court issued a Resolution dated December 3, 1955, the pertinent portions of which read as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

. . . the petitioner should seek its remedy in the Court below that has full cognizance of the facts and factors involved, and which may or may not maintain, modify or even lift the injunction heretofore issued by it, as the facts may warrant." 4

Armed with the foregoing legal advice, Petitioner. Reparations Commission went back to the respondent Court of First Instance, and in an Urgent Motion asked for the dissolution of the writs of injunction issued by said Court alleging that as a consequence of the issuance of the writs of injunction, the Philippine Mission refused to accept delivery from the Toyo Trading Co., Ltd. of the equipment called for in the reparations contract in question, and therefore the goods were placed in storage chargeable to the Republic of the Philippines; that the storage charges had reached $99,000.00 as of December 4, 1965 and the rates of charges would increase after full delivery; that if no justifiable reason could be shown for the non-acceptable of the goods, the Republic of the Philippines would be held liable for the payment of the storage fees; and, that the prestige of the Republic of the Philippines was at stake. 5

Despite opposition by Puyat, the lower Court on December 15, 1965 issued an Order, the dispositive portion of which decrees that:chanrobles.com : virtual law library

"WHEREFORE, it appearing from the facts established, that the jurisdiction of this Court to reach through certiorari proceedings the actuations of the (Reparations Commission) in the procurement contract in question is doubtful in view of the trans-national character of the contract; that the appropriate sanctions, including criminal, are available to protect the interest of the people of this country in the proper implementation of the Reparations Law; and, to obviate any liability on the part of the Republic of the Philippines, for storage fees, the ‘Urgent Motion’ is hereby GRANTED and the original (Rec. p. 124) as well as the supplementary (Rec. p. 171) writs of injunction are hereby DISSOLVED." 6

Efforts of Puyat to secure a restraining order against said dissolution proved futile when this Court denied his Urgent Motion and or Counter Petition with Urgent Petition for Issuance of Restraining Order on December 31, 1965. 7

Finally, on January 13, 1966, petitioner Reparations Commission filed a Motion to Dismiss Petition wherein it alleged, inter alia that "in view of the dissolution of the Writ of preliminary and supplementary preliminary injunction, the present petition has become moot and academic." 8 Records do not show that the respondents filed any opposition to the Motion.

Considering that the injunctive writs, both original and supplemental, subject of the instant Petition, have been dissolved by the Court below, this case has become moot and academic.chanrobles law library : red

WHEREFORE, let this case be, as it is hereby, dismissed for being moot and academic. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Abad Santos, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Vasquez, Melova and Gutierrez, Jr., concur.

Teehankee, J., took no part.

Concepcion, Jr., J., is on leave.

Endnotes:



1. Annex "A" to Petition; Rollo, pp. 22-24. Annex "B" to Petition; Rollo, p. 142.

2. Annex "B" to Petition; Rollo, p. 142.

3. Annex "D-2" to Petition; Rollo, p. 164.

4. Rollo, p. 274.

5. Annex "3" to private respondent’s Urgent Motion and/or Counter Petition With Urgent Petition for Issuance of Restraining Order; Rollo, pp. 294-295.

6. Annex "6" to private respondent’s Urgent Motion etc., ibid, Rollo, pp. 311-312.

7. Rollo, p. 328.

8. Rollo, pp. 329-331.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





May-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Matter No. 2668-MJ May 22, 1982 - MARIANO B. LAUREL v. HERMENEGILDO C. CRUZ

    4199 Phil. 243

  • G.R. No. L-28245 May 22, 1982 - PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 245

  • G.R. No. L-29555 May 22, 1982 - ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. REPARATIONS COMMISSION

    199 Phil. 256

  • G.R. No. L-29917 May 22, 1982 - FOREMOST ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 264

  • G.R. Nos. L-48376-85 May 22, 1982 - BALAGTAS REALTY CORPORATION v. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., ET AL.

    199 Phil. 267

  • G.R. No. L-54887 May 22, 1982 - GUILLERMA FLORDELIS, ET AL. v. FERMIN MAR, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 281

  • G.R. No. L-57535 May 24, 1982 - ZENITH INSURANCE CORPORATION v. FIDEL P. PURISIMA, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 291

  • Adm. Case No. 133-J May 31, 1982 - BERNARDITA R. MACARIOLA v. ELIAS B. ASUNCION

    199 Phil. 295

  • Adm. Case No. 797 May 31, 1982 - LYDIA CABATU v. EDGARDO C. DOMINGO

    199 Phil. 324

  • Adm. Matter No. 2180-MJ May 31, 1982 - EPHRAIM MARIANO, ET AL. v. CRISOSTOMO GONZALES

    199 Phil. 326

  • Adm. Matter No. 2240-MJ May 31, 1982 - COSME S. ABIOG, ET AL. v. JOSE M. PASCUAL

  • G.R. No. L-25271 May 31, 1982 - REPARATIONS COMMISSION v. GUILLERMO SANTOS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 339

  • G.R. No. L-30028 May 31, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENCIO DOBLE, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 343

  • G.R. No. 31255 May 31, 1982 - MARCIAL A. EDILLON v. PIO B. FERANDOS

    199 Phil. 363

  • G.R. No. L-32734 May 31, 1982 - IN RE: CHUA TIONG KANG, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    199 Phil. 366

  • G.R. No. L-33209 May 31, 1982 - JESUSA DEL ROSARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 367

  • G.R. No. L-33794 May 31, 1982 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 381

  • G.R. No. L-35105 May 31, 1982 - BALIUAG ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY, INC. v. JUAN F. ECHIVERI

    199 Phil. 393

  • G.R. No. L-35136 May 31, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADO MONSALUD

    199 Phil. 398

  • G.R. No. L-36754 May 31, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO ABAYON, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 404

  • G.R. No. L-37074 May 31, 1982 - IN RE: BENITO LEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    199 Phil. 436

  • G.R. No. L-37243 May 31, 1982 - IN RE: ALFONSO P. BICHARA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    199 Phil. 438

  • G.R. No. L-37477 May 31, 1982 - TORIBIO LESCANO v. JUAN A. BAES, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 440

  • G.R. No. L-39172 May 31, 1982 - SAMUEL DUMLAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 442

  • G.R. No. L-40101 May 31, 1982 - FABIAN BORLAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 448

  • G.R. No. L-46245 May 31, 1982 - MERALCO SECURITIES INDUSTRIAL CORP. v. CENTRAL BRD. OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 453

  • G.R. No. L-47334 May 31, 1982 - MIGUEL VIOLAGO, ET AL. v. JOSE C. CAMPOS, JR., ET AL.

    199 Phil. 463

  • G.R. No. L-47943 May 31, 1982 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 465

  • G.R. No. L-50081 May 31, 1982 - SANTOS CODILLA v. FLORENCIA LOPEZ, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 471

  • G.R. No. L-50261 May 31, 1982 - IN RE: CECILIA LAVIDES, ET AL. v. CITY COURT OF LUCENA

    199 Phil. 478

  • G.R. No. L-50466 May 31, 1982 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 487

  • G.R. No. L-52038 May 31, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISPIN ROYO, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 493

  • G.R. No. L-52516 May 31, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NILO TALORONG

    199 Phil. 502

  • G.R. No. L-53672 May 31, 1982 - BATA INDUSTRIES, LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 506

  • G.R. No. L-54681 May 31, 1982 - LILIA B. BARRERA v. FRANCIS J. MILITANTE, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 511

  • G.R. No. L-55698 May 31, 1982 - ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 517

  • G.R. No. L-55831 May 31, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GILBERT MEDRANO, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 520

  • G.R. No. L-57771 May 31, 1982 - QUIRINO CAVILI, ET AL. v. CIPRIANO VAMENTA, JR., ET AL.

    199 Phil. 528

  • G.R. No. L-58681 May 31, 1982 - ALFREDO P. MALIT v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    199 Phil. 532

  • G.R. No. L-59743 May 31, 1982 - NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGAR WORKERS v. ETHELWOLDO R. OVEJERA, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 537