FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 198879. August 27, 2020.]
ESTHER P. MAGLEO, petitioner,vs. OILINK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (OSG), respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 27, 2020 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 198879 — ESTHER P. MAGLEO, petitioner,versus OILINK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (OSG), respondents.
A case becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. 1 In such circumstance, courts of justice generally decline jurisdiction and no longer consider questions in which no actual interests are involved. 2 Here, the petitioner seeks to nullify the Court of Appeal's Decision which affirmed the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) Order reversing the previous grant of demurrer to evidence. However, the RTC's subsequent dismissal of the criminal case removed any actual controversy between the parties 3 and rendered the resolution of the instant petition superfluous and unnecessary. 4 Indeed, it becomes pointless and unrealistic to insist on giving due course to the petition and permit a review on the propriety of the Order reversing the grant of demurrer to evidence. Any Decision upon the merits of the petition would serve no useful purpose, 5 and the grant of any actual substantial relief is no longer feasible.
FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
(SGD.) MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.So v. Hon. Tacla, Jr., et al., 648 Phil. 149, 163 (2010), citing David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 522 Phil. 705 (2006).
2.Soriano Vda. de Dabao v. Court of Appeals, 469 Phil. 928, 937 (2004).
3.Ozaeta v. Oil Industry Commission, 187 Phil. 282, 287-288 (1980).
4.Camutin, et al. v. Sps. Potente, 597 Phil. 143, 148 (2009).
5.Philippine Sugar Institute (PHILSUGIN) v. Association of PHILSUGIN Employees (ASPEM), et al., 201 Phil. 416, 417 (1982).