GR L 53476; (November, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-53476 November 21, 1991
G & P COMPANY, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, MANUEL P. MONDEJAR and CRISTINA E. MONDEJAR, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner G & P Company filed an ejectment suit against private respondent Manuel Mondejar for non-payment of rentals. The Municipal Court ruled in favor of G & P. Mondejar appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI). Due to Mondejar’s failure to comply with the requirements of Section 8, Rule 70 (depositing monthly rentals and filing a supersedeas bond) to stay execution, the CFI issued orders for a writ of execution. The implementation of this writ was delayed due to settlement negotiations.
Despite the pendency of the appeal, the CFI later ordered a trial de novo because no transcript of the municipal court proceedings existed. Subsequently, the CFI granted G & P’s motion for another alias writ of execution to enforce the original municipal court judgment. Mondejar challenged these CFI orders via a certiorari petition in the Court of Appeals, which annulled the said orders. G & P elevated the case to the Supreme Court via the present petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should resolve the petition for review on its merits.
RULING
No. The petition is dismissed for being moot and academic. During the pendency of this case, the underlying ejectment case (Civil Case No. 16668) proceeded to trial de novo before the Regional Trial Court, which subsequently rendered a new judgment in favor of G & P. A writ of execution was issued based on this new RTC judgment, and Mondejar was eventually ejected from the leased property.
The core objective of the original petition—to secure Mondejar’s ejectment—had already been fully achieved through a separate and final proceeding. The Supreme Court, adhering to established jurisprudence, will not determine moot questions or abstract propositions where no practical relief can be granted. Since possession of the property had already been delivered to G & P under the RTC’s final judgment, the issue raised in the instant petition regarding the propriety of the CFI’s earlier execution orders had been rendered academic. The case was therefore dismissed.