ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 157364. June 7, 2004]

LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING vs. C.A.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 7 2004.

G.R. No. 157364 (Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company vs. Court of Appeals (thru its Special Former 11th Division), Hon. Francisco B. Ibay (in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 135), WMC Resources International Pty Ltd., WMC (Philippines), Inc. (now known as Tampakan Mineral Resources Corporation), Southcot Mining Corporation, Tampakan Mining Corporation and Sagittarius Mines, Inc.)

On January 23, 2001, petitioner Lepanto filed a Complaint for Specific Performance, Annulment of Contracts, Contractual Interference and Injunction against private respondents before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, docketed as Civil Case No. 01-087, praying for the enforcement of its Sale and Purchase Agreement whereby WMC Resources International Pty. offered to sell its capital stock in WMC (Philippines) Inc. Petitioner also prayed for the annulment of the Sale and Purchase Agreements of October 6, 2000 and January 10, 2001 by WMCI in favor of Southcot Mining Corporation, the Tampakan Mining Corporation and Sagittarius Mines, Inc. and WMCRI.

The complaint included an application for injunctive relief to restrain respondents from enforcing, executing and implementing the January 10, 2001 Agreement. The Executive Judge of the RTC of Makati City issued a 72-hour temporary restraining order against respondents. After hearing, the same was extended to complete the 20-day period. [1] cralaw The case was thereafter raffled to Branch 135, presided by respondent Judge Ibay.

Respondent Judge, in an Order [2] cralaw dated February 12, 2001, granted the application for preliminary injunction. Respondents filed a Verified Omnibus Motion [3] cralaw for the reconsideration of the Order dated February 12, 2001, and for the dissolution of the preliminary injunction, which the respondent Judge granted. Hence, he issued an Order [4] cralaw dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction, on the ground that respondents, particularly WMCP, would suffer irreparable damage by reason of the injunction.

Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the aforesaid Order but the same was denied. [5] cralaw

On April 20, 2001, petitioner Lepanto filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court and dismissed the petition. The motion for reconsideration was denied.

Hence this petition.

This is not the first time that we have decided issues involving not only the parties to the instant petition, but also issues intimately related to this case. On September 24, 2003, in G.R. No. 153885, the Third Division [6] cralaw of this Court consolidated petitioner Lepanto's twin petitions [7] cralaw for review on certiorari and held [8] cralaw that the petitioner is guilty of forum shopping for filing a civil case [9] cralaw before the Regional Trial Court of Makati while a similar case, seeking identical relief, was still pending with the Mines and Geosciences Bureau. The dispositive portion of this Court's Decision in that case reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in 1)G.R. No. 153885 AFFIRMING the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals, and 2) G.R. No. 156214 SETTING ASIDE the assailed Orders of Branch 135 of the Makati Regional Trial Court.

SO ORDERED.

The dismissal of the main case, Civil Case No. 01-087, has rendered moot and academic the petition. It should be recalled that what is being assailed here is only the injunction incident, which is merely ancillary to the principal action and depends on the existence of the latter. Where the main action ceases to exist, the matter of the injunction has no more leg to stand on. The issues in this case having become moot and academic, the resolution of this petition becomes of no practical use or value. [10] cralaw

ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition is DISMISSED for being moot and academic.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Order dated January 26, 2001, Original Records, p. 363.

[2] cralaw Id., p. 386.

[3] cralaw Original Records, pp. 398-426.

[4] cralaw Id., pp. 466-467.

[5] cralaw Id., p. 460.

[6] cralaw Composed of Supreme Court Justices Reynato Puno, Artemio Panganiban, Angelina Sandoval Gutierrez, Conchita Carpio Morales and Renato Corona.

[7] cralaw G.R. No. 152885, Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company v. WMC Philippines International PTY. LTD. and WMC (Philippines), Inc.; G.R. No. 156214, Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company v. WMC Resources International Pty. Ltd., WMC (Philippines), Inc., Southcot Mining Corporation, Tampakan Mining Corporation and Sagittarius Mines, Inc.

[8] cralaw Ponencia penned by Supreme Court Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales.

[9] cralaw Civil Case No. 01-087 for specific performance, annulment of contracts, contractual interference and injunction.

[10] cralaw Garcia v. Comelec, 258 SCRA 754 (1996).


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com