G.R. No. L-28521. January 21, 1977.
ALFREDO ABERIN, ET AL., AND HON. LOURDES P. SAN DIEGO, petitioners-appellants, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, QUEZON CITY, NORBERTO S. AMORANTO, ET AL., respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioners, licensed vendors and stallholders in Quezon City public markets, filed a civil case (Civil Case No. Q-8129) against Quezon City officials and private operators Nereo J. and Gloria G. Paculdo. They sought to nullify a contract and city council resolution granting the Paculdos a franchise to operate the Nepa-Q-Mart market and slaughterhouse, alleging the contract was ultra vires and caused them business losses. The trial court, presided by Judge Lourdes P. San Diego, ruled in favor of the vendors, declaring the contract and resolutions null and void, and ordered the city mayor to revoke all permits issued to the Paculdos for operating the market and slaughterhouse.
After the decision was rendered, the vendors filed a motion for immediate execution pending appeal, arguing the case involved public interest and delays from an appeal could extend beyond the terms of the incumbent city officials. The trial court granted this motion, ordering execution upon the posting of a bond. The city and the Paculdos challenged this order via a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court granted the petition and set aside the order of immediate execution, holding that the main case involved factual issues best resolved on appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should resolve the petition for review concerning the propriety of the immediate execution order issued by the trial court.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for having become moot and academic. The legal logic is grounded in the principle that courts will not determine cases where no actual controversy exists or where the issues have ceased to be justiciable. During the Court’s deliberation, respondent Paculdo manifested that the slaughterhouse was no longer operational and the market had been burned down and reconstructed under a new city council resolution. Both the Quezon City government and the petitioners-vendors expressed conformity to the dismissal of the main case in the lower court as moot.
Consequently, the object of the execution order—to enforce the trial court’s decision nullifying the contract and stopping the market’s operation—no longer existed. The specific acts complained of pertained to former officials no longer in office, and the factual situation had fundamentally changed. Since the core controversy was extinguished, the ancillary question regarding the propriety of execution pending appeal was rendered without legal basis. The Court therefore refrained from making a determination on the merits of the immediate execution order, as any ruling would have no practical legal effect.