G.R. No. L-38256 July 31, 1974
OCTAVIO A. KALALO, petitioner, vs. HON. EMILIO V. SALAS, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch I, and THE PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF RIZAL, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Octavio A. Kalalo sought relief from the Supreme Court, challenging the denial of his motion to dismiss an information for libel by the Court of First Instance of Rizal. He contended that the facts alleged in the information did not constitute the crime of libel. Concurrently, he asserted a violation of his constitutional right to due process, specifically claiming he was not granted an opportunity to present his counter-affidavits during the preliminary investigation conducted by the Provincial Fiscal’s office.
During the oral argument before the Supreme Court, the parties, represented by their counsel, appeared. The Court facilitated an agreement between them to resolve the procedural impasse and address the substantive legal issue efficiently, acknowledging the need to alleviate the heavily clogged court docket.

ISSUE

The primary issue was whether the case had been rendered moot and academic by a supervening agreement between the parties during oral argument, thereby obviating the need for the Supreme Court to rule on the alleged denial of due process during preliminary investigation and the propriety of the denial of the motion to dismiss the libel information.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the case as moot and academic. The legal logic is grounded in the judicial principle that courts will not determine questions that no longer present an actual, live controversy. During oral argument, the parties reached a binding agreement that fundamentally altered the procedural posture of the case. Respondent Provincial Fiscal B. Jose Castillo, in open court, granted the petitioner a period of ten days from August 5, 1974, to formally submit his counter-affidavits. This concession directly addressed and remedied the petitioner’s core due process complaint regarding the preliminary investigation.
In reciprocal agreement, petitioner’s counsel, Atty. Martiniano Vivo, withdrew his immediate challenge to the denial of the motion to dismiss the information. He reserved the right to renew his defense on the ground that the facts alleged do not constitute libel, either before the Fiscal’s office after submitting the affidavits or before the trial court after the prosecution’s case. This agreement rendered the original petition seeking mandamus or certiorari against the lower court’s orders unnecessary, as the parties voluntarily adopted a new course of action that satisfied the procedural grievance and deferred the substantive legal question to a more appropriate stage. Consequently, with the contested issues resolved by mutual accord, no justiciable controversy remained for the Supreme Court to adjudicate. The case was dismissed without pronouncement as to costs.