GR 158195; (December, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 158195 December 16, 2005
JAMES L. KING and DIOSDADO RETUYA, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, L.T. & SONS, INC., BUTUAN PREMIER DISTRIBUTION, INC., SUPREME THEATER CORPORATION and TAN ENTERPRISES, INC., Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners James L. King and Diosdado Retuya filed a complaint for sum of money with damages and applied for a writ of preliminary attachment against several individuals and corporations, including the respondent companies. They alleged that spouses Roderick Lim Go and Grace Tan Go persuaded King to invest with a promised daily interest, guaranteed by other family members. The trial court issued the writ, leading to the attachment of properties and the padlocking of the respondents’ business establishments.
The private respondents filed an omnibus motion to dismiss, quash the writ, and cite petitioners for contempt. They subsequently filed a petition for certiorari directly with the Supreme Court, which was dismissed for procedural defects including failure to state material dates and disregard of the hierarchy of courts. They then filed a similar petition with the Court of Appeals, which issued a temporary restraining order that was later converted into a preliminary injunction, ordering petitioners to cease enforcing the writ of attachment.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should grant the petition seeking to nullify the Court of Appeals’ resolutions that issued a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the writ of preliminary attachment.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition 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 been rendered academic by subsequent events. The core prayer of the petition was to nullify the Court of Appeals’ December 18, 2002 and April 8, 2003 Resolutions which granted the preliminary injunction.
However, during the pendency of this petition, the Court of Appeals had already rendered a Decision on December 15, 2003, granting the private respondents’ petition and making permanent the nullification of the writ of preliminary attachment. This subsequent decision resolved the main action on the propriety of the writ itself. Following the precedent in Kho v. Court of Appeals, the issuance of a final injunction renders any question on the preliminary injunctive order moot. Since the decision granting the final injunction was not appealed, the present petition lost its practical value and the Court could no longer provide any substantial relief to the petitioners. The dismissal on mootness grounds avoids rendering an advisory opinion on a dead issue.