FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 198808. June 16, 2021.]
WARNER LAMBERT CO., LLC AND PFIZER, INC. (Philippines), petitioners, vs. HON. JOSELITO C. VILLAROSA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 66, UNITED LABORATORIES, INC. AND THERAPHARMA, INC., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 16, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 198808 — WARNER LAMBERT CO., LLC and PFIZER, INC. (Philippines),petitioners,versus HON. JOSELITO C. VILLAROSA, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Makati City, Branch 66, UNITED LABORATORIES, INC. and THERAPHARMA, INC., respondents.
This is a petition for review on certiorari1 (Petition) assailing the Decision 2 dated July 11, 2011 and Resolution 3 dated September 26, 2011 of the Court of Appeals 4 (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 117487. In the assailed Decision and Resolution, the CA affirmed respondent Judge Joselito C. Villarosa's (Judge Villarosa) denial of petitioners' motion for his inhibition.
The Court resolves to DENY the Petition for being moot and academic.
During the pendency of this Petition, specifically in August 2018, Judge Villarosa retired as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 66. 5 His retirement has therefore rendered the issue of whether he ruled correctly in denying petitioners' motion for inhibition moot and academic. 6
As the Court held in Alliance of Non-Life Insurance Workers of the Philippines v. Mendoza: 7 "One of the tenets of judicial review is that this Court will not rule on moot and academic cases because judicial power is grounded on actual controversies. A case becomes moot and academic when it 'ceases to present a justiciable controversy because of supervening events so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value.'" 8
Here, due to Judge Villarosa's retirement, there is no longer a justiciable controversy. The Court's disposition of whether to affirm or reverse Judge Villarosa's denial of the motion for inhibition would have no practical use or value as Judge Villarosa is no longer the Presiding Judge of RTC of Makati City, Branch 66.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED for being MOOT AND ACADEMIC with the retirement of respondent Judge Joselito C. Villarosa.
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.Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 8-45, excluding Annexes.
2.Id. at 54-69. Penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican, with Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Edwin D. Sorongon concurring.
3.Id. at 71-75.
4. Special Seventeenth Division and Former Special Seventeenth Division.
5. See Office of the Court Administrator v. Villarosa, A.M. No. RTJ-20-2578, January 28, 2020, accessed at <https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/10662/> and "SC Penalizes Retired Judge," January 31, 2020, accessed at <https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/10192/>.
6. See Rosello v. Court of Appeals, Nos. L-46274 & L-46549, December 14, 1988, 168 SCRA 459, 471.
7. G.R. No. 206159, August 26, 2020, accessed at <https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/17120/>.
8.Id. at 28.