THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 178786. March 14, 2016.]
FILCREDIT FINANCE AND CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. SASPAI SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY, INC., YOLANDA G. MANIWANG AND REYNALDO V. MANIWANG, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated March 14, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 178786 (FilCredit Finance and Capital Development Corporation vs. SASPAI Security and Investigation Agency, Inc., Yolanda G. Maniwang and Reynaldo V. Maniwang). — On June 26, 2013, the Court required from the parties information regarding the following: (a) decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch 10 relative to the respondent SASPAI Security and Investigation Agency, Inc.'s (SASPAI) petition for rehabilitation; (b) pending actions filed by SASPAI before any court to assail the decision in the said petition for rehabilitation; and (c) any incident which had transpired or settlement arrived at rendering the resolution of the instant petition as moot. 1
In the Resolution 2 issued on August 28, 2013, the Court directed FilCredit and Capital Development Corporation (petitioner) to furnish it with the correct and current address of SASPAI and/or its counsel.
On June 17, 2015, the Court instructed the petitioner's counsel, Atty. Reymundo P.G. Villarica (Atty. Villarica), to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with for his failure to comply with the Resolutions dated June 26, 2013 and August 28, 2013. 3
To date, no compliance had been filed by the petitioner or its counsel.
The Court thus NOTES the petitioner's apparent disinterest in the case and Atty. Villarica's repeated disregard of lawful orders.
Further, by reason of the interval of time which had elapsed from SASPAI's filing of the petition for rehabilitation on June 23, 2005, the Court concludes that the resolution of the issues raised before Us is rendered moot. "A case becomes moot and academic when there is no more actual controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits." 4
In the case at bar, if SASPAI's petition for rehabilitation was given due course, the RTC of Davao City had made its ruling on what and whose properties were within the coverage of the proceedings. On the other hand, if SASPAI's petition was dismissed, the Stay Order 5 dated June 27, 2005 had lost its effectivity. It bears stressing that the subjects of the instant petition are the Orders of the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 220, dated February 23, 2007 6 and May 28, 2007, 7 which were issued pursuant to the June 27, 2005 Stay Order. If, however, SASPAI's rehabilitation was successfully concluded, its creditors' claims had been satisfied. In any of the foregoing scenarios, the issues raised in the instant petition, which in substance relate to the applicability of the Stay Order dated June 27, 2005 over the real properties belonging to respondent Yolanda G. Maniwang, SASPAI's President, and her husband, Reynaldo V. Maniwang, have been rendered moot. CAIHTE
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. Moreover, Atty. Reymundo P.G. Villarica is hereby FINED in the amount of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) for his failure to comply with the Court's Resolution dated June 26, 2013."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Please see Resolution, rollo, pp. 310-312.
2. Id. at 317.
3. Please see Resolution, id. at 319-320.
4. PNB v. CA, 353 Phil. 473, 479 (1998).
5. Rollo, pp. 148-150.
6. Id. at 35-36.
7. Id. at 37.