GR L 30595; (July, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-30595 July 16, 1982
MAGDALENA S. JOSON, assisted by her husband DR. RAFAEL JOSON, petitioner, vs. FORTUNATO CRISOSTOMO and IMELDA R. RODRIGUEZ and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Magdalena Joson filed a collection case against respondents Fortunato Crisostomo and Imelda Rodriguez. The City Court of Manila ruled in Joson’s favor. The respondents appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila, docketed as Civil Case No. 67385. On August 30, 1968, the CFI also rendered a decision ordering the respondents to pay Joson. Joson then filed a “Motion For Immediate Execution Pending Appeal,” which the CFI granted in an order dated September 14, 1968, conditioned on the respondents’ failure to post a supersedeas bond. The court later issued another order on September 21, 1968, directing execution upon Joson’s filing of a bond.
The respondents challenged these orders via a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a decision dated April 28, 1969, annulled the CFI’s orders granting execution pending appeal. Joson then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via the present petition for review, arguing that the CFI judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering execution pending appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the order for execution of judgment pending appeal in Civil Case No. 67385 was issued with grave abuse of discretion.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for being moot and academic. The legal logic is grounded in the principle that courts will not determine questions that no longer present an actual controversy. The records showed that the main case, Civil Case No. 67385, had already been finally resolved. The Court of Appeals, in the separate regular appeal (CA- G.R. No. 42740 -R), had affirmed the CFI decision on January 31, 1977, and this judgment had become final and executory on March 30, 1977. Consequently, the propriety of the earlier execution pending appeal, which was an interlocutory order, was rendered inconsequential. The finality of the main judgment superseded the interim issue, making any ruling on the alleged grave abuse of discretion merely academic. The Court therefore refrained from making a determination on the merits of the petition.