G.R. No. L-24810 June 19, 1979
HON. JOSE M. VILLARAMA, Governor of Bulacan, et al., petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, VICENTE DE LA CRUZ and MARIANO MENDOZA, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents Vicente de la Cruz and Mariano Mendoza, operators of nightclubs in Bocaue, Bulacan, filed a civil case for mandamus and prohibition with preliminary injunction before the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. They sought to nullify a Memorandum Circular issued by Governor Jose M. Villarama dated December 22, 1964, which directed that no permits be issued for the operation of nightclubs and similar establishments starting January 1, 1965. They also sought to compel the Municipal Treasurer to accept their license fee payments and to restrain the provincial officials from preventing their operations. The trial court dismissed the case, ruling that the Municipal Treasurer’s function to issue licenses was discretionary and not ministerial, and thus not controllable by mandamus.
The private respondents then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, in its decision, set aside the dismissal order, holding that the Municipal Treasurer had not exercised independent discretion but had merely complied with the Governor’s void Memorandum Circular. The Court of Appeals found the circular null as it constituted an illegal exercise of control over local officials and abrogated the existing municipal ordinance. It reinstated the civil case for trial on the merits and later issued a writ of mandatory injunction ordering the petitioners to allow the operation of the nightclubs upon payment of fees.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should resolve the substantive legal questions regarding the validity of the Governor’s Memorandum Circular and the propriety of the writ of mandamus.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as moot and academic. The legal logic for this dismissal is grounded in the principle that courts will not determine cases where no actual substantial controversy exists or where the issues have been rendered academic by subsequent events. The Court found that the Provincial Governor had, in effect, abrogated his own contested Memorandum Circular by subsequently allowing the issuance of licenses and permits to other nightclub operators in Bulacan. This action was taken with the full knowledge of the provincial officials concerned.
Furthermore, the petitioners manifested that they no longer objected to the respondents’ operation of their nightclubs following the Court’s dissolution of a preliminary injunction. With the executive action that gave rise to the dispute having been effectively withdrawn or superseded, the core conflict between the parties ceased to exist. There was no longer any live controversy requiring judicial resolution on the merits of the mandamus action or the validity of the circular. Consequently, the Court refrained from making a pronouncement on the substantive legal issues, as any decision would have no practical legal effect. The petition was therefore dismissed. No costs were awarded.