GR 47263; (May, 1978) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-47263. May 31, 1978.
HACIENDA DOLORES AGRO-INDUSTRIAL & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, EDMUNDO F. UNSON, ASTERIA L. UNSON and EMERITO DE JESUS, respondents.
FACTS
This case originated from a petition for certiorari filed by Hacienda Dolores Agro-Industrial & Development Corporation before the Supreme Court, impugning a specific resolution issued by the Court of Appeals. The appellate court’s resolution was an incidental order in CA-G.R. No. SP-07206, a separate petition for certiorari where the private respondents, the Unsons and Emerito de Jesus, were the petitioners. Prior to the Supreme Court’s resolution of the instant petition, the parties had filed joint motions requesting deferment to explore an amicable settlement of all their differences, which the Court granted.
Subsequently, the petitioner corporation filed a “Motion and Manifestation” informing the Supreme Court that the private respondents had filed a motion to withdraw their own petition in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. SP-07206). Attaching a copy of that withdrawal motion, the petitioner argued that since the private respondents had withdrawn the very petition to which the challenged resolution was incidental, there was no longer any legal necessity to proceed with its own petition before the Supreme Court. The petitioner, therefore, moved to withdraw its petition without prejudice.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should grant the petitioner’s motion to withdraw its petition in light of the private respondents’ withdrawal of the underlying case in the Court of Appeals.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the motion and deemed the petition withdrawn, thereby closing and terminating the case. The legal logic is grounded in the principle of mootness and judicial economy. The core subject of the petitioner’s appeal before the Supreme Court was a resolution issued by the Court of Appeals in an ancillary proceeding (CA-G.R. No. SP-07206). When the private respondents, as the parties who initiated that ancillary proceeding, voluntarily withdrew their petition before the Court of Appeals, the foundation for the contested resolution was effectively removed.
With the main action in the appellate court withdrawn, any ruling by the Supreme Court on the propriety of the incidental resolution would be an adjudication of an abstract question, rendering the issue moot and academic. Courts generally do not determine moot cases as their decisions would lack practical legal effect. Furthermore, the successive joint motions for deferment and the mutual withdrawals strongly implied that the parties had indeed settled their differences, aligning with the policy of the law to encourage compromise and amicable settlements. The withdrawal of both petitions by the opposing parties indicated a mutual desire to end the litigation, leaving no actual controversy for the Supreme Court to resolve. Therefore, granting the withdrawal was the proper and logical course of action.