Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 02 April 2008:

G.R. No. 178785 (Imelda R. Marcos v. Court of Appeals [9^th] and Francisco Chavez)

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari^[1] under Rule 65 which seeks to nullify and set aside the July 20, 2007 Resolution^[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 98799, issuing a writ of preliminary injunction and enjoining Judge Silvino T. Pampilo, Jr. from rendering judgment in Criminal Case Nos. 91-101732-39, 91-101879, and 92-101959-69.

At the time of the filing of the instant petition, petitioner Imelda R. Marcos was the accused in Criminal Case Nos. 91-101732-39, 91-101879-92, and 92-101959-69 pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 26 in Manila. The criminal cases were for violations of Central Bank Foreign Exchange Restrictions.

On May 10, 2007, the RTC set the cases for promulgation of judgment on May 23, 2007, which was later reset to May 30, 2007.

On May 22, 2007, before the RTC could promulgate its judgment, respondent Francisco Chavez filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 98799 with the CA against Judge Pampilo.^[3] He questioned Judge Pampilo's denial of the Motion to Inhibit previously filed by the prosecution.

On July 20, 2007, the CA issued the assailed Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 98799, enjoining Judge Pampilo from rendering judgment in the cases against petitioner pending final resolution of respondent Chavez's petition before the CA.

On July 27, 2007, petitioner filed the instant petition before this Court.On February 28, 2008, the CA rendered a Decision,^[4] resolving CA G.R. SP No. 98799. The appellate court found that respondent Chavez failed to substantiate his claim of bias on the part of Judge Pampilo. It thus dismissed the petition.

Subsequently, on March 10, 2008, the RTC rendered judgment in the criminal cses against petitiner. The fallo of its Decision^[5] reads:

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered and pursuant to applicable jurisprudence and law on the matter, the accused IMELDA ROMUALDEZ MARCOS and HECTOR T. RIVERA are hereby ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt.

x x x x

SO ORDERED.

Before us, petitioner essentially questions the CA's Resolution dated July 20, 2007 for being issued with grave abuse of discretion.

We decline to render a decision on the merits of the petition. For this Court to exercise its power of adjudication, an actual case or controversy must be presented. There must be a conflict of legal rights which necessitate judicial resolution.^[6]

In the instant case, however, there is no longer a conflict of legal rights this Court's adjudication. The petition has become superfluous as there is no longer an actual controversy between the parties.^[7] With the promulgation of judgment in Criminal Case Nos. 91-101732-39, 91-10189-92, and 92-101959-69, the relief sought by petitioner will no longer serve its pursue if granted.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for having been rendered moot and academic.

SO ORDERED. Quisumbing, J., on official leave.