G.R. No. L-35345 November 24, 1972
HON. ATILANO C. BAUTISTA, in his capacity as Judge, Municipal Court of Montalban, Rizal, petitioner, vs. HON. PEDRO C. NAVARRO, in his capacity as Judge, Court of First Instance of Rizal and MAXIMO CALALANG, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Judge Atilano C. Bautista of the Municipal Court of Montalban, Rizal, sought certiorari to annul a decision by respondent Judge Pedro C. Navarro of the Court of First Instance of Rizal. Judge Navarro had permanently enjoined Judge Bautista from further proceeding with the preliminary investigation in Criminal Case No. 1303, entitled People v. Maximo Calalang. The injunction was based on the claim of a prejudicial question. Petitioner argued this ruling constituted grave abuse of discretion, citing the doctrines in Dasalla v. City Attorney and Isip v. Gonzales, which hold that a motion to suspend criminal proceedings on the ground of a prejudicial question should be filed after an information is filed in court, not during the preliminary investigation stage before a prosecuting officer.
Subsequently, while the certiorari petition was pending before the Supreme Court, the principal parties reached an amicable settlement. Private respondent Maximo Calalang filed a motion to dismiss the special civil action in the Court of First Instance, as the complainant in the criminal case had withdrawn the charge. Respondent Judge Navarro granted the motion and dismissed the case. Petitioner Judge Bautista thus filed a manifestation and motion for clarification with the Supreme Court, stating that the underlying controversy had been settled and any decision on the merits would be moot and academic.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should proceed to resolve the petition for certiorari on its merits.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for being moot and academic. The legal logic is straightforward: courts will not determine questions that no longer require resolution because the issues involved have ceased to exist or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. The supervening event—the amicable settlement between the private parties, the withdrawal of the criminal complaint, and the consequent dismissal of the civil case by the Court of First Instance—had rendered the core controversy extinct. There was no longer any live case or controversy for the Supreme Court to adjudicate regarding the propriety of the injunction against the preliminary investigation. Judicial power is limited to actual cases and controversies; it does not extend to issuing advisory opinions on moot questions. Therefore, since the act sought to be enjoined (the preliminary investigation) was effectively terminated by the parties’ own actions, a ruling on the alleged grave abuse of discretion by respondent Judge Navarro would serve no practical purpose. The petition was dismissed without resolving the substantive legal issue concerning the timing of a motion to suspend proceedings based on a prejudicial question.