GR 45414; (August, 1977) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-45414 August 31, 1977
THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DUMAGUETE, petitioner, vs. HON. ALEJANDRO R. BONCAROS, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental, and S.L. TEVES, INCORPORATED, respondents.
FACTS
On September 22, 1975, private respondent S.L. Teves, Inc. filed a petition for mandamus before the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental, presided by respondent Judge Alejandro R. Boncaros. The petition sought to compel petitioner, the Mayor of Dumaguete City, to issue a Mayor’s Permit for the operation of the “Park” and “Town” theaters. The petitioner Mayor filed his answer, interposing several affirmative defenses. After due hearing, the respondent Judge rendered a decision on September 29, 1976, ordering the Mayor to issue the permit for the period covering July 31 to December 31, 1975, upon payment of the required fees.
The petitioner Mayor subsequently instituted the present petition for review, contending that the respondent Judge erred in declaring that the Mayor lacks discretionary power in issuing permits under Section 6 of Ordinance No. 79, series of 1974, of the Dumaguete City Local Tax Code, once its requirements are complied with.
ISSUE
Whether the petition for review has been rendered moot and academic.
RULING
Yes, the petition is moot and academic. In its comment on the petition, private respondent S.L. Teves, Inc. claimed that the case had become moot because the petitioner Mayor had already issued the very permit prayed for in the mandamus case. This issuance was evidenced by certified true copies of the Mayor’s Permit and the payment of required fees, which were attached to the comment. The petitioner Mayor admitted this fact in his reply.
The Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Concepcion, Jr., applied the well-settled legal principle that courts will not determine a moot case—one where a judicial declaration would have no practical legal effect because the contested act has already been performed or the issue has been resolved by subsequent events. The core controversy, which was the compulsion to issue the permit, ceased to exist when the Mayor voluntarily issued it. Since the primary relief sought in the original mandamus action had already been granted, any ruling on the alleged error regarding the Mayor’s discretionary power would be an academic exercise without any actual, substantial relief to the parties. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.