This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-08-11 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Second, even as we say that the imputation against the RTC has no basis, we are also in agreement that the CA has sufficient basis to rule that this case is already moot. An issue is said to have become moot when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy so that a declaration on the issue would be of no practical use or value.[19] In this case, a ruling on the propriety of the RTC's directive in its October 12, 2001 Order that the Rehabilitation Receiver submit his recommendation would have no more practical value since the recommendation was already submitted. Similarly, a ruling on the propriety of the RTC's statement that it will reflect on the issue of viability of the rehabilitation plan upon receipt of the receiver's recommendation would also have no more practical value since the RTC had already considered the recommendation in rendering its Decision dated April 22, 2002 in Civil Case No. CEB-26481-SRC. | |||||
|
2006-09-26 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In light of these events, the instant petition for certiorari has become moot and academic. A case becomes moot when there is no more actual controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits of the case.[8] Here, the issue of whether grave abuse of discretion attended the issuance of the assailed Resolutions issued by Executive Judge Luczon has ceased.[9] | |||||