GR 39257; (July, 1976) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-39257 July 23, 1976
EDMOND M. RUIZ, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. LEONOR INES LUCIANO, as Presiding Judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City, and CELESTINE LUMBA RUIZ, respondents.
FACTS
Celestine Lumba Ruiz filed a complaint for support and custody of their three minor children against her husband, Edmond M. Ruiz, before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court (JDRC). She alleged she was driven from their conjugal home and deprived of custody and support. Edmond Ruiz countered by filing a petition for legal separation against Celestine, alleging she committed adultery and abandoned the family, making her unfit for custody and disentitled to support. He also revealed a criminal case for adultery was pending against Celestine and her paramour before Military Commission No. 2.
During the pendency of the civil cases, Edmond filed urgent motions to suspend the JDRC proceedings pursuant to the Rules of Court, arguing they arose from the same offense of adultery and should await the final judgment in the criminal case. The respondent judge denied these motions. Edmond then elevated the matter via certiorari to the Court of Appeals, which denied his petition. He subsequently filed this petition for review with the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the proceedings in the civil cases for support, custody, and legal separation should be suspended until final judgment in the criminal case for adultery.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as moot and academic. The core legal issue sought to enjoin the lower court from proceeding with the civil cases pending finality of the criminal adultery case. However, during the pendency of this petition, the criminal case before the military commission concluded with a conviction, and the sentence was approved by the President as the reviewing authority. This approval rendered the criminal judgment final.
Consequently, the very controversy that gave rise to this petition—the request for suspension of civil proceedings pending a final criminal judgment—was extinguished. The criminal case having reached finality, the reason for seeking suspension ceased to exist. The Court held that no effective relief could be granted, as the desired condition (final judgment in the criminal case) had already been fulfilled. A decision on the propriety of suspension would serve no practical purpose. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and the temporary restraining order was lifted.