G.R. No. L-28756 January 31, 1972
HON. ANTONIO V. RAQUIZA, as Secretary of Public Works and Communications and HON. BALTAZAR AQUINO, as Commissioner of Public Highways, petitioners, vs. EQUIPMENT MARKETING CORPORATION and HON. WALFRIDO DE LOS ANGELES, as Presiding Judge of Branch IV of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (sitting in Quezon City), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, the Secretary of Public Works and the Commissioner of Public Highways, sought certiorari and prohibition to annul a restraining order issued by respondent Judge Walfrido de los Angeles of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch IV. The order enjoined petitioners from making a final award for the supply of 100 truck-mounted cranes to Toyo Menka Kaisha, Ltd., or from implementing any such award. This order was issued in favor of respondent Equipment Marketing Corporation (EMC), which had filed a suit claiming it should be awarded the bid. Petitioners argued the lower court lacked jurisdiction as their offices were in Manila, not Rizal, and that the judge committed grave abuse of discretion since EMC’s bid was non-compliant and not the most advantageous to the government, unlike Toyo’s bid.
This Court initially issued a resolution enjoining the respondent Judge from enforcing his order. Subsequently, while the case was pending, EMC filed a new suit involving the same parties and cause of action before the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case No. 73216). Furthermore, petitioners manifested that the contract with Toyo Menka Kaisha, Ltd. had already been executed, the letters of credit opened, and the cranes delivered and were being used by the Bureau of Public Highways.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for certiorari and prohibition has been rendered moot and academic.

RULING

Yes, the petition is dismissed for being moot and academic. The core legal principle applied is that courts will not determine questions that no longer present a justiciable controversy because the issues have been resolved by subsequent events or the act sought to be prevented has already been consummated. Here, the factual developments during the pendency of the case fundamentally altered the situation. The filing by EMC of a separate action in Manila on the same matter effectively submitted the controversy to another court and acknowledged the jurisdictional question. More decisively, the contract for the cranes, which was the very subject of the restraining order, had already been fully performed—the equipment was delivered, accepted, and was in active use by the government. The act sought to be enjoined had become a fait accompli. Since this Court’s resolution requiring respondents to show cause why the case was not moot met with no opposition or contradiction, the facts establishing mootness stand uncontroverted. Therefore, any ruling on the original jurisdictional and procedural issues would be an academic exercise without practical legal effect. The petition is dismissed.