Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

KOREA EXCHANGE BANK v. ROGELIO C. GONZALES

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 203142 2015-08-26	PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY v. COALITION OF PPA OFFICERS DEL CASTILLO, J.
Courts of justice constituted to pass upon substantial rights will not consider questions where no actual interests are involved. Thus, the well-settled rule that courts will not determine a moot question. Where the issues have become moot and academic, there ceases to be any justiciable controversy, thus rendering the resolution of the same of no practical value. Courts will decline jurisdiction over moot cases because there is no substantial relief to which petitioner will be entitled and which will anyway be negated by the dismissal of the petition. The Court will therefore abstain from expressing its opinion in a case where no legal relief is needed or called for.[30]
	GR No. 190120 2014-11-11	CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF PHILIPPINES EMPLOYEES’ UNION v. CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF PHILIPPINES VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The Court agrees with the postulation of the OGCC that the nullification of the assailed Authority Orders has become moot and academic considering that Director General Cusi already issued a Memorandum[68] dated March 12, 2010, terminating the services of all the personnel appointed by Director General Ciron. An issue is said to have become moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy so that a declaration on the issue would be of no practical use or value.[69] The Court will therefore abstain from expressing its opinion in a case where no legal relief is needed or called for.[70]
	GR No. 168906 2008-12-04	PERLA S. ESGUERRA v. JUDGE FATIMA GONZALES-ASDALA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Esguerra would also later on withdraw her application for preliminary injunction/TRO. At this point, the question of whether RTC-Branch 87 properly denied the said application, became moot and academic.[24] There is no more justiciable controversy insofar as the denial of the petition for preliminary injunction/TRO is concerned, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. There is no actual substantial relief in this regard to which Esguerra would be entitled and which would be negated by the dismissal of her Petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 79075 by the appellate court.[25] Courts of justice constituted to pass upon substantial rights will not consider questions in which no actual interests are involved. Courts will not determine a moot question.[26]
	GR NO. 170924 2007-07-04	IN MATTER OF PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF CEZARI GONZALES v. GEN. EFREN ABU CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
When the release of the persons in whose behalf the application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus was filed is effected, the Petition for the issuance of the writ becomes moot and academic.[23] With the release of both Mesa and Gonzales, the Petition for Habeas Corpus has, indeed, been rendered moot. Courts of justice constituted to pass upon substantial rights will not consider questions where no actual interests are involved. Thus, the well-settled rule that courts will not determine a moot question. Where the issues have become moot and academic, there ceases to be any justiciable controversy, thus rendering the resolution of the same of no practical value.[24] This Court will therefore abstain from expressing its opinion in a case where no legal relief is needed or called for.[25]