SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

G.R. No. L-22939 November 5, 1924
L. GARDUNO vs. A. DIAZ -->

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-22939 November 5, 1924

L. GARDUNO, Petitioner, vs. A. DIAZ, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Respondent.

Fisher, DeWitt, Perkins and Brady and Camus and Delgado for petitioner.
Attorney-General Villa-Real for respondent. Jose Abad Santos as amicus curiae.

MALCOLM, J.:

This is a moot case made so by the action of the parties.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The prayer of the original petition for certiorari and prohibition asked that a writ issue restraining the respondent from proceeding further in the so-called contempt proceedings, or any proceedings of like nature related to the facts, and particularly from enforcing the order to show cause previously issued. The prayer of the supplemental petition was that, since the respondent had revoked the order complained of, the present case by summarily disposed of by a permanent prohibition against any renewed attempt to revive the order or any like proceedings. But the respondent judge assures as that there is no intention on his part nor is he aware of any necessity of promulgating any further order in the premises.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The sole purpose of issuing the writ would be to establish a principle to govern other cases. But courts exist to decide actual controversies, not to give opinions upon abstract propositions. (U. S. vs. Hoffman [1866], 4 Wall., 158; Mills vs. Green [1895], 159 U. S., 651; Jones vs. Montague [1904], 194 U. S., 147.)chanrobles virtual law library

Proceedings ordered dismissed without costs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Johnson, Street, Avanceña, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns and Romualdez, JJ., concur.