G.R. No. 163037 ; February 6, 2013
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent.

FACTS

On February 9, 1990, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati approved a Compromise Agreement between PLDT and ETPI, which was rendered as a judgment. The agreement governed their revenue-sharing arrangement for international telephone traffic and included a termination clause. This clause stipulated that the agreement would terminate if ETPI commenced operating its own international gateway and PLDT was legally obligated to interconnect with it, effective upon their agreement on an access charge or upon a competent authority’s order for interconnection.
Subsequently, ETPI informed PLDT of its intent to establish its own gateway and requested interconnection. PLDT refused. ETPI then filed a petition with the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC), which, on June 17, 1999, issued an Order directing PLDT to interconnect with ETPI. PLDT complied with this interconnection order. Following this compliance, PLDT filed a Motion for Execution with the RTC, seeking a declaration that the Compromise Agreement was terminated as of the NTC’s June 17, 1999 Order. The RTC granted the motion. ETPI appealed to the Court of Appeals, which initially affirmed the RTC but later reversed itself in an Amended Decision.

ISSUE

Whether the petition before the Supreme Court has been rendered moot and academic.

RULING

Yes, the petition is moot and academic. The core legal issue was the effective date of termination of the Compromise Agreement. PLDT argued termination occurred on June 17, 1999, the date of the NTC interconnection order. ETPI contended it was later, upon the actual physical interconnection. The Supreme Court found that regardless of which date was correct, the Compromise Agreement had indisputably been terminated by the time the case reached the High Court. The agreement itself had a natural expiration date of November 28, 2003, subject to renewal notices, and the records showed no such notice was given. Consequently, the agreement had lapsed by its own terms well before the Supreme Court’s review.
Since the contract sought to be enforced had already expired, any judicial determination of the precise termination date would have no practical legal effect. There was no longer any live controversy or enforceable right under the agreement for the courts to resolve. The Court emphasized that it does not adjudicate moot cases unless certain exceptions apply, such as a grave constitutional violation or a matter of paramount public interest capable of repetition, none of which were present here. Therefore, the petition was denied for being moot and academic.