GR 196902; (July, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 196902, July 13, 2020
EXPRESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO., INC., (EXTELCOM), PETITIONER, VS. AZ COMMUNICATIONS, INC., RESPONDENT.
FACTS
The National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) issued Memorandum Circular No. 07-08-2005 (2005 Memorandum) to allocate five 3G radio frequency bands. Respondent AZ Communications, Inc. (AZ Comm) applied but was denied, along with other companies. AZ Comm filed a Petition for Review before the Court of Appeals. Subsequently, the NTC declared the 2005 Memorandum functus officio and issued a new Memorandum Circular No. 01-03-2010 (2010 Memorandum) for the assignment of the last remaining 3G band. Petitioner Express Telecommunications Co., Inc. (Extelcom) applied under this new 2010 Memorandum and sought to intervene in AZ Comm’s pending petition before the Court of Appeals, arguing its application would be affected if AZ Comm’s petition were granted. The Court of Appeals denied Extelcom’s Motion for Leave to Intervene, ruling Extelcom had no standing as it did not apply under the 2005 Memorandum and that intervention was sought after judgment could become final. Extelcom’s motion for reconsideration was also denied. Extelcom then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of this petition, the Supreme Court, in a related case (G.R. No. 199915), denied AZ Comm’s petition and affirmed the NTC’s denial of its application. This denial became final and executory.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Supreme Court’s denial with finality of respondent AZ Communications, Inc.’s Petition in G.R. No. 199915 renders moot petitioner Express Telecommunications Company, Inc.’s motion to intervene.
RULING
Yes. The case is moot. A case becomes moot when a supervening event terminates the legal issue between the parties, leaving the court with nothing to resolve and unable to grant any effective relief. The supervening event here is the Supreme Court’s final and executory denial of AZ Comm’s petition in G.R. No. 199915, which affirmed the NTC’s rejection of AZ Comm’s application for a 3G frequency band. Since AZ Comm’s underlying claim for the frequency band has been conclusively denied, the issue of whether Extelcom should be allowed to intervene in that now-resolved case has been rendered academic. No practical or useful purpose would be served by ruling on the propriety of intervention, as the main controversy has been terminated. Courts generally decline jurisdiction over moot cases.