G.R. No. L-45121-22, June 16, 1978
ROSARIO P. ARCEO, petitioner, vs. HON. NARCISO A. AQUINO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch XIV at Rosales, and ANICETO SANDOVAL, respondents.

FACTS

In Special Proceeding No. 116-R (Intestate Estate of Honorato L. Arceo) and Civil Case No. 283-R (Rosario P. Arceo vs. Aniceto Sandoval), both pending before the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Rosales Branch XIV, petitioner Rosario P. Arceo, as administratrix of her deceased husband’s estate, filed a motion for recusation against respondent Judge Narciso A. Aquino. The motion, dated September 24, 1976, sought to disqualify the judge from hearing the two cases.
The petitioner grounded her motion on allegations that respondent Judge had consorted on several occasions with the private respondent, Aniceto Sandoval, who was a creditor in the intestate proceeding and the defendant in the civil case. She specifically cited their mutual membership in the Lions Club as indicative of a close and intimate personal relationship. She argued that due to this relationship, the judge would be incapable of hearing the cases with the requisite “cold neutrality of an impartial judge.” Respondent Judge denied the motion on the same date it was filed. A subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner was likewise denied.

ISSUE

Whether the petitions for certiorari and prohibition, seeking to prohibit respondent Judge from hearing the cases due to alleged bias and partiality, have been rendered moot and academic by a supervening event.

RULING

Yes, the petitions have been rendered moot and academic. The Supreme Court, after giving due course to the petitions and receiving the parties’ memoranda, took judicial notice of a supervening fact. It was established that the application of respondent Judge Narciso A. Aquino for disability retirement had been approved, effective February 23, 1978. This retirement removed the respondent Judge from his official position and, consequently, from any capacity to preside over or influence the proceedings in the two subject cases.
The legal logic is grounded in the principle of mootness. A case becomes moot when there is no longer any actual controversy between the parties or when the issues presented have ceased to exist. The core relief sought in the petitions was a judicial order prohibiting Judge Aquino from hearing the cases. His compulsory retirement from the judiciary, which occurred while the petitions were pending decision, definitively and permanently achieved the very objective of the prohibition. Since he was no longer a judge, the order sought could no longer have any practical legal effect. The Court, therefore, dismissed the petitions as moot and academic, considering them closed. No costs were awarded.