G.R. No. L-22573. March 31, 1976.
James H. Fleming, petitioner, vs. Civil Aeronautics Board and Philippine Air Lines, Inc. (PAL), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner James H. Fleming, operator of Fleming Airways System Transport (FAST), sought to nullify a Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) resolution dated February 13, 1964. The resolution granted a provisional authority to respondent Philippine Air Lines (PAL) to operate air services using Douglas DC-4 aircraft on specific routes, adopting the same rates and fares charged by FAST. The CAB denied Fleming’s motion for reconsideration on March 5, 1964. Fleming filed this petition for review by certiorari on March 13, 1964, arguing that PAL’s provisional authority was improperly granted.
After the Court gave due course to the petition, PAL filed an urgent motion to continue operating under the CAB’s provisional authority during the appeal’s pendency. In a resolution dated April 27, 1964, the Supreme Court granted PAL’s motion. The Court noted that FAST itself was not authorized to render scheduled domestic or international air service, as its own certificate for non-scheduled service was not final due to a pending PAL motion for reconsideration. Furthermore, the Court found that the specific Manila-Bacolod-Cebu-Davao route authorized for PAL was expressly excluded from FAST’s operational authority by a prior Court of First Instance order. The Court thus denied Fleming’s request for an injunction.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should dismiss the petition as moot and academic.

RULING

Yes, the petition is dismissed for being moot and academic. The legal logic is grounded in the principle that courts will not determine cases where no actual controversy exists or where the issues have ceased to be justiciable. Respondent PAL filed a Motion to Dismiss on November 13, 1969, alleging that the case had become moot. PAL stated that the CAB had withdrawn the challenged authorization, and PAL had consequently stopped operating the questioned air services as early as 1965. It also alleged that petitioner Fleming had ceased his own operations for several years.
The Court issued a resolution requiring Fleming to comment on the motion to dismiss, but it was returned unclaimed. No comment or any other pleading was filed by Fleming thereafter. Given the lapse of over six years without any objection from the petitioner and the absence of any controversion of PAL’s factual allegations, the Court found no indication of Fleming’s continued interest in the case. The circumstances demonstrated that the core dispute over the provisional authority had been extinguished by the subsequent withdrawal of the CAB authorization and the cessation of operations by both parties. Furthermore, the Court’s April 27, 1964 resolution, which allowed PAL to continue operating during the appeal, had effectively upheld the CAB’s provisional order against Fleming’s challenge for a stay. Since the operational conflict no longer existed, any ruling on the merits would be purely academic. Therefore, the case was ordered dismissed.