GR 214053; (June, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 214053, June 6, 2018
TEODORICO CASTILLO, ALICE CASTILLO, and ST. EZEKIEL SCHOOL, INC., Petitioners, vs. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners Teodorico and Alice Castillo obtained loans from respondent Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), secured by a real estate mortgage over a property. Upon petitioners’ default, BPI extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage, emerged as the highest bidder at the auction sale, and, after the redemption period lapsed, obtained a Certificate of Sale. BPI subsequently filed a Petition for Ex Parte Issuance of a Writ of Possession before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which was granted. Petitioners appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), but the CA dismissed the appeal and affirmed the RTC’s ruling. Petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
During the pendency of the Supreme Court petition, and after the parties had submitted their memoranda, petitioners filed a “Withdrawal of Petition” dated October 13, 2016. They prayed for the dismissal of the petition on the ground of a compromise agreement. The Court, in a Resolution dated April 3, 2017, required BPI to comment on the withdrawal. However, BPI failed to file any comment despite the lapse of a considerable period.
ISSUE
Whether the Petition for Review on Certiorari should be dismissed in light of the petitioners’ filing of a Withdrawal of Petition and the respondent’s failure to oppose it.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as moot and academic. The legal logic is grounded in the judicial policy of dismissing cases that have been rendered moot by supervening events, such as a party’s express withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that the withdrawal was initiated by the petitioners themselves. Furthermore, respondent BPI’s prolonged inaction and failure to file the required comment on the withdrawal, despite the Court’s directive, could be reasonably construed as an implied concurrence or approval of the dismissal. Since the petitioners, as the party appealing, voluntarily sought to terminate the litigation, and the respondent bank raised no objection, there was no longer an actual case or controversy requiring judicial resolution. The dismissal was therefore proper, as courts will generally not rule on matters where no live dispute exists between the parties.