GR 144891; (May, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 144891 . May 27, 2004.
RAMON A. GONZALES, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION, SPORTS AND GAMES ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, BEST WORLD GAMING AND ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, BELLE JAI-ALAI CORPORATION, and FILIPINAS GAMING ENTERTAINMENT TOTALIZATOR CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Ramon A. Gonzales, as a citizen, taxpayer, and member of the Bar, filed a special civil action for prohibition as a class suit. He sought to declare the creation of PAGCOR unconstitutional and to nullify the “grant of franchises” or agreements it executed with several corporations. These included an agreement with SAGE for internet gambling, with BEST WORLD for computerized bingo, and with BELLE and FILGAME for jai-alai operations. Gonzales aimed to restrain these operations.
During the pendency of this case, supervening events occurred. In a related case, Del Mar v. PAGCOR, the Court declared the jai-alai agreement among PAGCOR, BELLE, and FILGAME invalid, enjoining its operation. Subsequently, BELLE and FILGAME manifested that their participation in the instant case was no longer warranted. Separately, BEST WORLD stated its operations had been shut down since October 2000 pursuant to a Presidential Memorandum. Furthermore, petitioner Gonzales died, and his heirs declined to pursue the case, though counsel moved for substitution by other members of the class.
ISSUE
Whether the petition has been rendered moot and academic by supervening events.
RULING
Yes, the petition is moot and academic. The core of the case assailed specific agreements PAGCOR entered into. The Court’s ruling in Del Mar had already nullified the jai-alai agreement with BELLE and FILGAME, removing any actual controversy involving them. For BEST WORLD, the entity ceased operations by direct presidential order in 2000, and there was no showing it resumed. Thus, no live case existed against these respondents. Regarding the agreement with SAGE for internet gambling, a subsequent case, Jaworski v. PAGCOR, squarely resolved the issue by upholding PAGCOR’s authority to enter into such contracts under its franchise. This Court is bound by that final ruling under the doctrine of stare decisis. Consequently, the substantive issues raised were already authoritatively settled. The death of the original petitioner and the lack of interest from his heirs further supported termination. A case becomes moot when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy, or when supervening events make a judicial declaration of no practical value. All these conditions converged here, compelling the dismissal of the petition.