FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 235777. July 7, 2020.]
RUDERIC C. MARZO, petitioner,vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND CELSO G. REGENCIA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 7, 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 235777 — RUDERIC C. MARZO, petitioner, versus COURT OF APPEALS AND CELSO G. REGENCIA,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 (CA) Resolutions 3 in CA-G.R. SP No. 08088-MIN granting injunctive reliefs enjoining the Ombudsman's Order dated March 29, 2017. Nevertheless, the CA subsequently rendered a Decision in the main case in favor of the respondent and set aside the Ombudsman Order. Later, this Court affirmed with finality the findings of the appellate court.
Without doubt, this Court's final judgment affirming the CA's Decision rendered the assailed injunctive reliefs permanent. It has now removed any actual controversy between the parties 4 and rendered the Resolution of the instant petition for certiorari superfluous and unnecessary. 5 Indeed, it becomes pointless and unrealistic to insist on giving due course to the petition and permit a review on the propriety of the issuance of the injunctive reliefs. Differently stated, any Decision upon the merits of the petition would serve no useful purpose, 6 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:
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.Rollo, pp. 34-40, 80-83, and 98-100.
4.Ozaeta v. Oil Industry Commission, 187 Phil. 282, 287-288 (1980).
5.Camutin, et al. v. Sps. Potente, 597 Phil. 143, 148 (2009).
6.Philippine Sugar Institute (PHILSUGIN) v. Association of PHILSUGIN Employees (ASPEM), et al., 201 Phil. 416, 417 (1982).