G.R. No. L-45633 February 28, 1979
ELIZABETH PAPILOTA, et al., and THE HON. MIDPANTAO L. ADIL, et al., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION and ROMEO C. ZARRIS, respondents.

FACTS

This case originated from a vehicular accident on June 30, 1969, involving Coca-Cola trucks owned by San Miguel Corporation (SMC) and driven by Romeo Zarris, which resulted in deaths and injuries. In Civil Case No. 9941, the trial court, presided by Judge Midpantao Adil, rendered a judgment on August 24, 1976, ordering SMC and Zarris to pay damages to the victims. Private respondents filed a notice of appeal and bond but subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration. Petitioners moved for execution, arguing the appeal was improper and the judgment had become final. On December 7, 1976, Judge Adil denied the motion for reconsideration, disallowed the appeal, and ordered execution. A writ was issued, and SMC’s trucks were attached for auction.
On December 9, 1976, private respondents filed a new notice of appeal, bond, and record on appeal. Judge Adil initially suspended the auction but later lifted the suspension and denied approval of the record on appeal on January 7, 1977, deeming the judgment final. Consequently, on January 8, 1977, SMC and Zarris filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. SP-06239), which issued a preliminary injunction on January 10, 1977, enjoining the enforcement of the trial court’s orders and execution proceedings.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals had appellate jurisdiction over the petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by SMC and Zarris, challenging the trial court’s orders denying their appeal and directing execution.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, declaring the issue moot and academic. The Court noted that after the Court of Appeals rendered its decision on April 1, 1977, granting the petition and setting aside the challenged orders of Judge Adil, the petitioners (Papilota, et al.) filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-46693). This latter petition was denied for lack of merit in resolutions dated February 13, 1978, and April 14, 1978. The legal logic is clear: the Supreme Court’s denial of the petition for review in G.R. No. L-46693 constituted an affirmation of the correctness of the Court of Appeals’ decision. By implication, this recognition affirmed the Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction to entertain the original petition for certiorari and mandamus. Since the higher court had already effectively ruled on the merits of the appellate court’s decision, the question of jurisdiction raised in the instant petition became purely academic. The Supreme Court reiterated its policy of not deciding moot questions, as the core issue had been conclusively settled by its prior action. The dismissal was thus grounded on mootness and lack of merit.