G.R. No. 198860; July 23, 2012
ABRAHAM RIMANDO, Petitioner, vs. NAGUILIAN EMISSION TESTING CENTER, INC., represented by its President, ROSEMARIE LLARENAS and HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

FACTS

The respondent, Naguilian Emission Testing Center, Inc., filed a petition for mandamus and damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to compel petitioner Abraham Rimando, then the Municipal Mayor of Naguilian, La Union, to issue a business permit for its emission testing business. The respondent had operated from 2005 to 2007 and applied for a renewal in 2008. The petitioner refused to issue the permit unless the respondent executed a lease contract with the municipality, claiming the land was municipal property based on a tax declaration. The respondent was willing to sign but proposed revisions unacceptable to the petitioner, leading to an impasse.
The RTC denied the petition, ruling that the municipality owned the land, had the right to require a lease under its Revenue Code, and that the mayor’s duty to issue permits was discretionary and not enforceable by mandamus. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) declared the appeal moot as the period for the permit had lapsed. However, it proceeded to rule on the merits, reversing the RTC. The CA held the tax declaration was insufficient to require a lease, found the relevant Sangguniang Bayan resolution void for non-compliance with the Local Government Code, and stated the mayor acted in good faith. Despite its mootness declarations, the CA reversed the RTC decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling on the merits and reversing the RTC decision despite finding the petition for mandamus moot and academic.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the CA decision, and reinstated the RTC ruling. The Court agreed with the CA’s initial finding that the petition for mandamus was moot and academic. The period for the 2008-2009 business permit had expired, and the petitioner’s term as mayor had ended, rendering any ruling incapable of providing practical relief. As a rule, courts decline jurisdiction over moot cases.
The Court held that the CA erred in proceeding to resolve the appeal on the merits and in its dispositive portion reversing the RTC. The CA’s conclusions on land ownership and the invalidity of the municipal resolution were unsubstantiated and, given the mootness, served no practical purpose. The proper course was to dismiss the appeal outright due to mootness.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court affirmed the RTC’s correct legal basis for denial. A writ of mandamus lies only to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one. Under Section 444(b)(3)(iv) of the Local Government Code, the power of a municipal mayor to issue business permits is a discretionary function stemming from delegated police power. Therefore, mandamus was an improper remedy to compel the issuance of the permit. The question of whether such power was validly exercised is a matter for certiorari, not mandamus.