Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CONSTANCIO F. MENDOZA v. MAYOR ENRILO VILLAS

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 207682 2014-12-10	CONRADO B. NICART v. MA. JOSEFINA C. TITONG VELASCO JR., J.
A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical value. As a rule, courts decline jurisdiction over such case, or dismiss it on ground of mootness.[26] Whatever judgment is reached, the same can no longer have any practical legal effect or, in the nature of things, can no longer be enforced.[27]
	GR No. 192803 2013-12-10	ALLIANCE FOR RURAL v. COMELEC LEONEN, J.
Mendoza v. Villas[26] defines a moot and academic case:A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical value. As a rule, courts decline jurisdiction over such case, or dismiss it on ground of mootness.[27]
	GR No. 206794 2013-11-26	BANKERS ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINES v. COMELEC BRION, J.
The power of judicial review is limited to actual cases or controversies. The Court, as a rule, will decline to exercise jurisdiction over a case and proceed to dismiss it when the issues posed have been mooted by supervening events. Mootness intervenes when a ruling from the Court no longer has any practical value and, from this perspective, effectively ceases to be a justiciable controversy.[13] "[W]ithout a justiciable controversy, the [petition would] become a [plea] for declaratory relief, over which the Supreme Court has no original jurisdiction."[14]
	GR No. 187801 2012-09-13	HEIRS OF LEONARDO BANAAG v. AMS FARMING CORPORATION REYES, J.
The fact that the present petition did not specify the rule by which it was filed does not ipso facto merit its outright dismissal. As ruled in Mendoza v. Villas,[34] the Court has the discretion to determine whether a petition was filed under Rule 45 or 65 of the Rules of Court in accordance with the liberal spirit permeating the Rules of Court and in the interest of justice.
	GR No. 172712 2012-03-21	STRADCOM CORPORATION v. HILARIO L. LAQUI AS ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC OF QUEZON CITY PEREZ, J.
Where a case has become moot and academic, there is no more justiceable controversy, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical value.[22] A case becomes moot and academic when, by virtue of supervening events,[23] there is no more actual controversy between the parties and no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits.[24] Since they are constituted to pass upon substantial rights, courts of justice will not consider questions where no actual interests are involved.[25] As a rule, courts decline jurisdiction over such cases or dismiss them on the ground of mootness.[26]
	GR No. 191017 2011-11-15	CONSTANCIO F. MENDOZA v. SENEN C. FAMILARA PEREZ, J.
For clarity and to obviate confusion, we treat the instant petition as one filed under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court since the totality of the allegations contained therein seek to annul and set aside the Resolution of the COMELEC en banc because it is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. As we have also noted in Mendoza v. Mayor Villas,[14] another case filed by Mendoza before us where Mendoza did not specify under which Rule (45 or 65) his petition was being filed, this Court has the discretion to determine whether a petition was filed under Rule 45 or 65 of the Rules of Court.