GR L 38137; (July 1975) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-38137. July 17, 1975.
JOSE M. CASTILLO, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Jose M. Castillo filed an action for damages against respondent Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. The complaint arose from PLDT’s disconnection of his residential telephone service in Malabon, Rizal, allegedly without prior statement or notice. After the trial court denied PLDT’s motion to dismiss on venue grounds, PLDT filed its answer. Subsequently, upon receiving a new disconnection threat, Castillo secured an ex parte restraining order from the Bulacan court on December 3, 1971, directing PLDT to desist from discontinuing his service.
PLDT later moved to lift this restraining order, challenging the Bulacan court’s jurisdiction to enjoin an act to be performed outside its territorial boundaries, specifically in Rizal. The trial court denied this motion. PLDT then filed a certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals, which set aside the Bulacan court’s orders and made permanent its own preliminary injunction, upholding PLDT’s jurisdictional argument. Castillo elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should rule on the merits of the petition given the subsequent amicable settlement between the parties.
RULING
The Supreme Court did not resolve the substantive jurisdictional issue regarding a court’s power to issue restraining orders over acts outside its territory. Instead, the legal logic centered on judicial policy favoring the amicable settlement of disputes. During proceedings, the Court noted the possibility of settlement. The parties subsequently filed a “Joint Manifestation” informing the Court that they had amicably settled their differences in both the instant petition and the underlying civil case in Bulacan, and requested the petition’s withdrawal.
The Court found no legal impediment to granting this request. When parties voluntarily and mutually agree to settle their dispute and disclaim any intention to continue litigation, the courts generally respect and give effect to such agreements to promote peace and avoid unnecessary adjudication. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted the withdrawal of the petition. As a necessary corollary to the settlement and to prevent further litigation on a mooted case, the Court also directed the dismissal of the related civil case pending in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. No costs were awarded.