When a Case Becomes Moot and Academic. Supervening Event

When a Case Becomes Moot and Academic. Supervening Event

 

When does a case become moot and academic?  The Supreme Court in the case of Federal Express Corporation vs. Airfreight 2000, Inc., and the CIR (G.R. No. 225050, dated September 14, 2021), citing the case of Garcillano vs. House of Representative Committee on Public Information [595 Phil. 775 (2008)
], explained as follows:

“In Garcillano v. House of Representatives Committee on Public Information, the Court elucidated on when a case should be dismissed for being moot and academic: 

 

The Court, however, dismisses G.R. No. 170338 for being moot and academic. Repeatedly stressed in our prior decisions is the principle that the exercise by this Court of judicial power is limited to the determination and resolution of actual cases and controversies. By actual cases, we mean existing conflicts appropriate or ripe for judicial determination, not conjectural or anticipatory, for otherwise the decision of the Court will amount to an advisory opinion. The power of judicial inquiry does not extend to hypothetical questions because any attempt at abstraction could only lead to dialectics and barren legal questions and to sterile conclusions unrelated to actualities. Neither will the Court determine a moot question in a case in which no practical relief can be granted. A case becomes moot when its purpose has become stale. It is unnecessary to indulge in academic discussion of a case presenting a moot question as a judgment thereon cannot have any practical legal effect or, in the nature of things, cannot be enforced.” 

 

In the case of Peñafrancia Sugar Mill, Inc., vs. Sugar Regulatory Commission (G.R. No. 208660, dated March 5, 2014), a case may be dismissed for being moot and academic due to a supervening event, thus:

 

“A case or issue is considered moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that an adjudication of the case or a declaration on the issue would be of no practical value or use. In such instance, there is no actual substantial relief which a petitioner would be entitled to, and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition. Courts generally decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on the ground of mootness. This is because the judgment will not serve any useful purpose or have any practical legal effect because, in the nature of things, it cannot be enforced.” 

 

In the above-cited Peñafrancia case, respondent Sugar Regulatory Commission issued Sugar Order No. 2 that imposes a lien of ₱2.00 per LKG-Bag on all raw sugar quedan-permits. Petitioner questioned the validity of the Sugar Order for being unconstitutional by filing a petition for prohibition and injunction before the Naga City RTC. Subsequently, after the case reached the Supreme Court but prior to its resolution, respondent commission issued Sugar Order No. 5 revoking Sugar Order No. 2 – the supervening event making the case moot and academic.

 

Conversely, can a supervening event revive a case or issue dismissed for being moot and academic? Yes, but only on certain cases. Going back to the case of Federal Express Corporation cited above, the Supreme Court ruled as follows:

 

“Indeed, the Court may pass upon issues which supervening events had rendered the petition moot and academic, but it does so only when there is grave violation of the Constitution; when paramount public interest is involved; when the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar and the public; or when the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. FedEx though fails to convince the Court that any of these exceptional circumstances exist in the instant case to compel it to still resolve a moot and academic petition for the purpose of formulating guiding and controlling constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines or rules for future guidance of both bench and bar. The issues concerning the examination and reproduction of the Requested Documents in the PATE Case call for an appraisal of factual considerations which are peculiar only to the transactions and parties involved in the controversy, namely, FedEx, AF2100, and the BIR. Said issues do not call for a clarification of any constitutional principle or are of paramount public interest. Perforce, the Court dispenses with the need to adjudicate the same when the PATE Case had become moot and academic.” 

 

From the foregoing, a case may be dismissed for being moot and academic due to a supervening event. On the other hand, a case dismissed for being moot and academic may be reopened due to a supervening event when there is grave violation of the Constitution; when paramount public interest is involved; when the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar and the public; or when the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.