GR 153785; (August, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 153785 August 3, 2006
VERONIQUE T. HUIBONHOA, Petitioner, vs. ANGEL D. CONCEPCION, and HON. RAYMUNDO Z. ANNANG, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, Branch 86, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Angel D. Concepcion, Sr. filed a complaint for accounting and damages against petitioner Veronique T. Huibonhoa with the RTC of Cabanatuan City. On the same day, July 13, 2001, Acting Executive Judge Raymundo Annang issued a 72-hour Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) restraining Huibonhoa from performing as manager of Poulex Supermarket and ordering a turnover of records. On July 17, 2001, Judge Annang issued another order declaring the TRO expired but directing the supermarket to remain closed. Huibonhoa filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals to annul these orders, alleging grave abuse of discretion.
The Court of Appeals dismissed Huibonhoa’s petition on grounds of prematurity and forum shopping, noting her failure to first move for the TRO’s dissolution in the trial court under Rule 58 and her filing of a related intra-corporate suit. Huibonhoa’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the grounds of prematurity and forum shopping.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition for being moot and academic. The core subject of the petition was the propriety of the 72-hour TRO issued on July 13, 2001. By its very nature, a 72-hour TRO expires ipso jure after its period lapses, without need for a judicial declaration. Consequently, any challenge to its validity became moot upon its automatic expiration. Furthermore, the parties had reached a settlement and mutually dismissed all cases filed against each other, thereby extinguishing any live controversy.
The Court emphasized the settled doctrine that it will not determine moot questions where no actual justiciable controversy exists and no substantial relief can be granted. Since the TRO had long expired and the underlying dispute was resolved via settlement, the petition presented no issue requiring adjudication. The Court abstained from ruling on the alleged errors regarding prematurity and forum shopping, as any opinion would be advisory and of no practical legal value.