G.R. No. 159740 January 19, 2009
Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System, petitioner, vs. ESM Trading Corporation, respondent.

FACTS

On August 14, 1995, respondent ESM Trading Corporation (ESM) filed a complaint for nullification of a public bidding and damages against petitioner Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS), its officers, and Consuelo Commodities, Inc. (CCI) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Guagua, Pampanga. ESM alleged it suffered damages due to the award of a contract for spring hydrants to CCI, which it claimed was a non-complying bidder. On June 30, 2000, the RTC ruled in favor of ESM, ordering MWSS and its officers to pay actual, moral, and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. ESM moved for execution pending appeal, which the RTC granted on January 8, 2001, leading to the garnishment of MWSS’s funds. MWSS appealed the RTC decision (docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 74964) and also filed a petition for certiorari challenging the grant of execution pending appeal (docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 62920). The Court of Appeals dismissed MWSS’s certiorari petition on March 14, 2003, and denied its motion for reconsideration on August 28, 2003. MWSS then filed the present petition for review on certiorari. However, pending resolution, the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision on October 29, 2004, in the main appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 74964), reversing the RTC decision and deleting all awards of damages in favor of ESM.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for review on certiorari, which assails the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of MWSS’s petition challenging the execution pending appeal, has been rendered moot and academic.

RULING

Yes, the petition has been rendered moot. The Court of Appeals’ reversal of the RTC decision in the main case (CA-G.R. CV No. 74964) nullified the basis for the writ of execution pending appeal. Since the award of damages in favor of ESM was deleted, the execution pending appeal issued to enforce that award lost its legal foundation. Consequently, the issue raised in the present petition became academic. The Supreme Court denied the petition for review, and set aside the challenged Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 62920.