470 Phil. 322
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Motions to dismiss the complaint were filed by Gutierrez and Eusebio Tan, Cojuangco and Ongsiako on September 28, 1992,[5] October 7, 1992,[6] and December 5, 1992,[7] respectively, while Estrella, in his manifestation filed on October 14, 1992,[8] adopted the motion to dismiss of Cojuangco.Private defendants aboverreffered (sic) to may be served with summons and other court processes at the addresses stated hereunder:
- Defendants named hereunder acted as subordinates, dummies, agents, and/or nominees of defendants Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr and the Heirs of Eduardo Cojuangco, Sr. and Ernesto Oppen, Jr. by allowing themselves to be named incorporators, stockholders, directors and/or corporate officers of defendant-corporations abovementioned.
Names: Addresses:a) ANTONIO C. CARAG c/o Southern Textile
Mills, Inc.
16th Flr., Gammon Center
126 Alfonso Street
Salcedo Village, Makati
Metro Manilab) ELEAZAR B. REYES Aero Park
Better Living Subdv.
Paranaque, M.M.c) ARMANDO Q. ONGSIAKO
94 Segundo Street
Gatchalian Subdv
Sucat Rd., Paranaque
Metro Manilad) FLAVIO P. GUTIERREZ 27 Gloria Street
B.F. Homes, Almanza
Las Pinas, M.M.e) EDMUNDO L. TAN 65 A. Zobel Street
B.F. Homes, Paranaque
Metro Manilaf) EUSEBIO V. TAN 40 Fisher Avenue
Pasay City, M.M.[4]
(Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FIFTH DIVISION) ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF (sic) EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN RULING THAT “THE FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE ON ALL FOURS WITH THOSE OF REGALA, ET AL. V. SANDIGANBAYAN AND HAYUDINI V. SANDIGANBAYAN” AND CONSEQUENTLY, IN RULING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT MAY NOT BE COMPELLED TO FURNISH PETITIONER “DOCUMENTS SHOWING THAT THE ACTS FOR WHICH HE WAS CHARGED ARE IN FURTHERANCE OF LEGITIMATE LAWYERING,” AND THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT IS EXCLUDED AS PARTY DEFENDANT IN CIVIL CASE NO. 0145.[18]In the meantime, almost a decade after the complaint was filed, the Sandiganbayan, by Resolution of September 17, 2001,[19] granted the separate motions to dismiss filed by Cojuangco, Gutierrez and Eusebio Tan, and Ongsiako, as well as that of Conrado Estrella. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the pertinent portions of which Resolution are hereinbelow quoted verbatim:
It is, thus, clear from the recitals of the Complaint itself that what we have here is a case for declaration of nullity, not one for recovery of ill-gotten wealth, a matter obviously within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), since it involves title to or possession of real properties. Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, as amended, provides, as follows:Aggrieved by the Sandiganbayan’s dismissal of its complaint, petitioner filed on October 9, 2001 a motion for reconsideration,[21] which the Sandiganbayan denied by Resolution of April 23, 2002.[22] Petitioner thereupon assailed the dismissal by petition for review with this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 153272, which was denied by Resolution of July 24, 2002 in this wise:
“Section 9. Jurisdiction in Civil Cases – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise original jurisdiction:The case is not within the purview of Presidential Decree No. 1606 as amended by Republic Act No. 7975 and further amended by Republic Act No. 8249, which provides that this Court shall be jurisdiction over the following cases, to wit:xxx
(2) In all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of the property exceeds Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) or, for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;”“Sec. 4 Jurisdiction – The Sandiganbayan shall have jurisdiction over:Suffice it to state that with the above ruling, there is no further need to discuss the other grounds for the various Motions to Dismiss. Even assuming argumenti gratia that the other grounds are not meritorious, just the same, the Complaint still has to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the part of this Court.
(a) Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and Republic Act No. 1379 and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense: xxx xxx xxx(b) Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a of this section in relation to their office(c) Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A issued in 1986.
ACCORDINGLY, the various Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED and the Complaint is hereby ordered DISMISSED without prejudice.
Resolutions on the various bill of particulars filed by various defendants have become unnecessary too.[20] (Emphasis in the original)
G.R. No. 153272 (Republic of the Philippines vs. Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., et al.). – Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the petition for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the Sandiganbayan dated September 17, 2001 and April 23, 2002, the Court Resolves to DENY the petition for failure of the petitioner to sufficiently show that the Sandiganbayan committed any reversible error in the challenged resolutions as to warrant the exercise by this Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction in this case…[23] (Emphasis and italics in the original)Undaunted, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s July 24, 2002 Resolution and a motion to refer the case to the Court En Banc on August 23, 2002 and September 3, 2002, respectively. By Resolution of September 11, 2002,[24] this Court denied with finality petitioner’s motion for reconsideration:
G.R. No. 153272 (Republic of the Philippines vs. Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., et al.). – Acting on the motion of petitioner for reconsideration of the resolution of July 24, 2002 which denied the petition for review on certiorari and considering that there is no substantial argument to warrant a modification of this Court’s resolution, the Court Resolves to DENY reconsideration with FINALITY.[25] (Emphasis and italics in the original)As for petitioner’s motion to refer the case to the Court En Banc, it was, by Resolution of October 2, 2002,[26] denied for lack of merit.
We cannot quite agree with this plea much as we desire to rule on the merits of the case. The duty of the court is to decide actual controversies, not mere hypothetical cases. When this case was brought to this Court, there was actual controversy. Several issues were raised. The main purpose is to have the replevin case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. This purpose however has already been accomplished, although on a different ground. If the petitioners wanted to have the case decided on the merits so that a ruling may be had on the issue of jurisdiction or on the matter affecting ownership of the articles involved, they should have appealed from the order of the dismissal in the replevin case. This they failed to do. The replevin case has ceased to have legal existence. And as this case of certiorari is but an outgrowth of the main case, it must fall on its own weight. The order of dismissal is now final in character and cannot be revived. There is, therefore, no point to continue with this case when the main case is nonexistent. This Court finds no other alternative than to dismiss it without prejudice on the part of the petitioners to take such action as may be proper relative to the articles seized from Domingo Pineda.[30] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)The rule is well-settled that for a court to exercise its power of adjudication, there must be an actual case or controversy — one which involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution; the case must not be moot or academic or based on extra-legal or other similar considerations not cognizable by a court of justice.[31] Where the issue has become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, and an adjudication thereon would be of no practical use or value[32] as courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest, however intellectually challenging.[33]