G.R. No. L-47770. August 10, 1978.
SPOUSES DIOSDADO “JOHNNY” LEWIS and ARACELI RAMCHAND LEWIS, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ABDULWAHID A. BIDIN, Presiding Judge, Branch 1, CFI-Zamboanga City, and ZAMBOANGA COMMERCIAL & TRADING CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners, Spouses Lewis, were defendants in an ejectment case filed by the private respondent, Zamboanga Commercial & Trading Corporation. The City Court of Zamboanga decided against the petitioners. They appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Zamboanga. During the pendency of that appeal, the respondent CFI judge issued writs of execution and garnishment against the petitioners for their alleged failure to file a sufficient supersedeas bond. The petitioners challenged these writs via a certiorari petition to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed their petition. The petitioners then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.
This Supreme Court petition initially led to the issuance of a temporary restraining order on March 17, 1978, enjoining the enforcement of the writs. However, while this petition was pending, the CFI proceeded to decide the main ejectment appeal on the merits, dismissing the petitioners’ appeal and sustaining the City Court’s decision in toto. The petitioners received a copy of this CFI decision on March 20, 1978, but filed a Motion for Reconsideration only on April 20, 1978, which was beyond the reglementary period. The CFI denied this motion on June 9, 1978, explicitly noting that its decision had already become final and executory.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for review before the Supreme Court, which assailed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the certiorari petition against the interlocutory writs of execution, has been rendered moot and academic.

RULING

Yes, the petition is moot and academic and must be dismissed. The core legal logic is that a supervening event—the finality of the judgment in the main action—has deprived the present procedural controversy of any practical legal effect. The petitioners’ original challenge was directed against the propriety of the interlocutory writs of execution issued during the pendency of their appeal to the CFI. The subsequent rendition and, crucially, the finality of the CFI’s decision on the merits of that very appeal fundamentally altered the situation.
The CFI decision, which affirmed the ejectment judgment against the petitioners, became final and executory due to the petitioners’ failure to timely move for its reconsideration. Once a judgment becomes final and executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable. Any writ of execution issued to enforce that final judgment is a matter of right. Therefore, the earlier question regarding the propriety of the interlocutory writs, issued pending appeal, is now entirely academic. The rights of the parties are conclusively governed by the final judgment on the merits. The Supreme Court does not adjudicate moot cases or issue rulings on abstract questions. Since the main case has been terminated with finality, the ancillary issue raised in this petition no longer presents a justiciable controversy. The Court, citing precedents, resolved to grant the respondent’s Motion to Dismiss.