SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 218735. April 10, 2019.]
MACTAN ROCK INDUSTRIES, INC. AND ANTONIO P. TOMPAR, petitioners, vs.BENFREI1S. GERMO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 10 April 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 218735 — MACTAN ROCK INDUSTRIES, INC. and ANTONIO P. TOMPAR, petitioners, versus BENFREI S. GERMO, respondent.
This is a petition for review on certiorari (Petition) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Cou6rt (Rules) assailing the Decision 2 dated February 12, 2015 and Resolution 3 dated April 29, 2015 of the Court of Appeals 4 (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 134474. The CA Decision denied the Rule 65 petition for certiorari filed by petitioners assailing the (1) Order dated October 1, 2013 in Civil Case No. 11-029 of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 276 (RTC) granting respondent Benfrei S. Germo's (Germo) "Fourth Motion to Declare Defendants (herein petitioners) in Default" and allowing Germo to present his evidence ex parte; and (2) Order dated December 10, 2013 denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the Order dated October 1, 2013. The CA Resolution denied the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners.
This case stemmed from a complaint for sum of money with damages filed on March 14, 2011 by Germo against petitioner Mactan Rock Industries, Inc. (MRII) and its Chairman, petitioner Antonio P. Tompar (Tompar), alleging that (i) Germo was employed by petitioners as marketing consultant in charge of marketing MRII's products and services and representing the company in the negotiation and perfection of its sale/order contracts; (ii) as compensation, Germo was to receive a monthly allowance of P5,000.00 per agreed area of business, and commission of a certain percentage based on the contract/sales price; and (iii) despite Germo's successful negotiation for a supply contract with International Container Terminal Services, Inc., petitioners failed to pay Germo the commission they agreed upon. 5 Germo prayed that petitioners be ordered to pay to him unpaid commissions, interest and moral damages. 6
Subsequently, petitioners filed their answer and the RTC issued a pre-trial notice setting the pre-trial conference on October 18, 2011. 7 Both parties filed their respective pre-trial briefs. 8 CAIHTE
From the first setting of the pre-trial conference on October 18, 2011 up to the last setting on August 15, 2013, spanning almost two years, 10 postponements had been made, six of which were due to the failure of petitioners to appear. 9 Germo had filed four motions to declare petitioners as in default with the first and third motions being granted but later reconsidered, and the second denied. 10 The fourth motion was granted by the RTC in its Order dated October 1, 2013. 11 The said Order also allowed Germo to present his evidence ex parte. 12
Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but their motion was denied by the RTC in its Order dated December 10, 2013. 13
Thereafter, petitioners filed a Rule 65 certiorari petition before the CA on the ground that the RTC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and/or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it issued the Orders dated October 1, 2013 and December 10, 2013. 14
The CA denied the certiorari petition for lack of merit in its Decision 15 dated February 12, 2015. The CA also denied the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners in its Resolution 16 dated April 29, 2015.
Hence, the present Rule 45 Petition.
The Petition is dismissed on the ground of mootness.
A case is moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events such that a declaration thereof would be of no practical value; and as a rule, courts decline jurisdiction over such case, or dismiss it on ground of mootness. 17
The RTC's Decision dated January 14, 2015 in the main case, finding petitioners solidarily liable to pay Germo the amount of P4,499,412.84 plus interest, damages and attorney's fees, which was affirmed by the CA in its Decision dated August 8, 2016, was assailed before the Court in a petition for review in Mactan Rock Industries, Inc. and Antonio Tompar v. Benfrei S. Germo, G.R. No. 228799. The Court's Second Division in its Decision 18 dated January 10, 2018 partly granted the said petition and affirmed with modification the CA Decision, deleting petitioner Tompar's solidary liability and making petitioner MRII solely liable to respondent Germo. 19 Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied with finality in its Resolution dated April 23, 2018.
WHEREFORE, the main case, from which the incident giving rise to the instant Petition arose, having been decided with finality by the Court, the DISMISSAL of this case is in order.
SO ORDERED. (PERLAS-BERNABE, J., on leave)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Also spelled as "Benfrie" in some parts of the rollo.
2.Rollo, pp. 44-56. Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, with Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of this Court) concurring.
3.Id. at 57.
4. Seventh Division.
5.Rollo, p. 45.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 46.
8.Id.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 48.
13.Id. at 49.
14.Id.
15.Id. at 44-56.
16.Id. at 57.
17.Mendoza v. Villas, 659 Phil. 409 (2011), citing Gunsi, Sr. v. Commissioners, The Commission on Elections, 599 Phil. 223 (2009).
18. Mactan Rock Industries, Inc. and Tompar v. Germo, G.R. No. 228799, January 10, 2018; rollo, pp. 270-277.
19. Id. at 276.