G.R. No. 179571 , July 2, 2014
ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO, Petitioner, vs. BAGUIO COUNTRY CLUB CORPORATION and ANTHONY R. DE LEON, Respondents.

FACTS

Spouses Potenciano and Erlinda Ilusorio owned a parcel of land and a cottage inside the recreational complex of respondent Baguio Country Club Corporation (BCCC). Basic facilities such as access, electricity, and water were provided by BCCC. In 1999, BCCC, through its Manager Anthony R. De Leon, allegedly cut off the electric and water supply to the cottage without prior notice, rendering it unusable. Erlinda Ilusorio filed a complaint for injunction, mandamus, and damages against BCCC and De Leon before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, docketed as Civil Case No. 00-656. She impleaded her husband Potenciano as co-plaintiff and sought appointment as his guardian ad litem, alleging his incapacity. The complaint prayed for an order directing respondents to provide access, water, and electricity to the property, and for payment of actual, moral, and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees totaling ₱5,500,000. Respondents moved to dismiss, arguing Erlinda lacked legal capacity to sue and that the services were cut off upon Potenciano’s instruction due to fire hazard concerns. The RTC denied both Erlinda’s motion for guardianship and respondents’ motion to dismiss. After Potenciano’s death on June 28, 2001, the Court of Appeals dismissed a related certiorari petition filed by Erlinda for being moot. Subsequently, respondents filed a motion to dismiss the main complaint, arguing it was moot and academic because the cottage had been removed in 2003 to pave the way for construction. Erlinda opposed, asserting that her claims for damages remained viable separate from the main action. The RTC granted the motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the removal of the cottage rendered the prayers for mandamus and injunction meaningless and that the claim for damages, being merely ancillary, was likewise rendered illusory.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the cause of action for damages was ancillary and could not stand alone after the destruction of the cottage, and that the claim for damages was rendered moot and academic.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. It ruled that while the actions for mandamus and injunction were rendered moot and academic by the removal of the cottage, the claim for damages was not mooted. The Court held that an issue becomes moot when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy, and a declaration would be of no practical use. However, a case should not be dismissed simply because one issue has become moot if there are other causes that need resolution after trial. Dismissal without resolving other substantive issues would deny the plaintiff due process. The acts complained of—cutting off utilities and denying access—allegedly caused damage to Erlinda when the suit was commenced. The issue of whether she is entitled to actual, moral, and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees should be resolved during trial on the merits. The Court set aside the RTC Order dated January 4, 2006, and the Court of Appeals Decision, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings on the claim for damages.