This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2014-03-24 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| "It is well-settled that courts will not determine questions that have become moot and academic because there is no longer any justiciable controversy to speak of. The judgment will not serve any useful purpose or have any practical legal effect because, in the nature of things, it cannot be enforced."[37] In such cases, there is no actual substantial relief to which the petitioners would be entitled to and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition.[38] Thus, it would be futile and pointless to address the issue in G.R. No. 199687 as this has become moot and academic. | |||||
|
2012-07-23 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| An issue or a case becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy so that a determination thereof would be without practical use and value[9] or in the nature of things, cannot be enforced.[10] In such cases, there is no actual substantial relief to which the applicant would be entitled to and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition.[11] As a rule, courts decline jurisdiction over such case, or dismiss it on ground of mootness.[12] | |||||
|
2012-07-17 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| An issue or a case becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy so that a determination thereof would be without practical use and value.[18] In such cases, there is no actual substantial relief to which the petitioner would be entitled to and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition.[19] | |||||
|
2011-08-17 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The mootness of the petition warranted its denial. When the resolution of the issue submitted in a case has become moot and academic, and the prayer of the complaint or petition, even if granted, has become impossible of enforcement - for there is nothing more to enjoin - the case should be dismissed.[17] No useful purpose would then be served by passing on the merits of the petition, because any ruling could hardly be of any practical or useful purpose in the premises. It is a settled rule that a court will not determine a moot question or an abstract proposition, nor express an opinion in a case in which no practical relief can be granted.[18] Indeed, moot and academic cases cease to present any justiciable controversies by virtue of supervening events,[19] and the courts of law will not determine moot questions,[20] for the courts should not engage in academic declarations and determine a moot question.[21] | |||||
|
2009-04-02 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Chavez, assuming for argument that it involves issues subject of the respondent Committee's assailed investigation, is no longer sub judice or "before a court or judge for consideration."[13] For by an en banc Resolution dated July 1, 2008, the Court, in G.R. No. 164527, denied with finality the motion of Chavez, as the petitioner in Chavez, for reconsideration of the Decision of the Court dated August 15, 2007. In fine, it will not avail petitioners any to invoke the sub judice effect of Chavez and resist, on that ground, the assailed congressional invitations and subpoenas. The sub judice issue has been rendered moot and academic by the supervening issuance of the en banc Resolution of July 1, 2008 in G.R. No. 164527. An issue or a case becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy, so that a determination of the issue would be without practical use and value. In such cases, there is no actual substantial relief to which the petitioner would be entitled and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition.[14] Courts decline jurisdiction over such cases or dismiss them on the ground of mootness, save in certain exceptional instances,[15] none of which, however, obtains under the premises. | |||||
|
2007-09-11 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| SO ORDERED.[26] Evidently, in view of the foregoing resolution of the Sandiganbayan in the criminal cases, the present petition has become moot and academic. An issue is said to have become moot and adacemic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy so that a declaration on the issue would be of no practical use or value.[27] | |||||
|
2007-08-07 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In the ultimate analysis, petitioners are seeking the reinstatement of the writ of injunction to prevent the concerned parties from pushing through with transactions with Qualcomm, Inc. Given that Qualcomm, Inc. is no longer interested in pursuing the contracts, there is no actual substantial relief to which petitioners would be entitled and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition.[27] | |||||
|
2006-06-22 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The Court has ruled that an issue becomes 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. In such cases, there is no actual substantial relief to which the plaintiff would be entitled to and which would be negated by the dismissal of the complaint.[33] However, a case should not be dismissed simply because one of the issues raised therein had become moot and academic by the onset of a supervening event, whether intended or incidental, if there are other causes which need to be resolved after trial. When a case is dismissed without the other substantive issues in the case having been resolved would be tantamount to a denial of the right of the plaintiff to due process. It must be stressed that the material allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought determine the nature of an action. The designation of the nature of an action, or its title, is not meaningless or of no effect in the determination of its purpose and object.[34] | |||||