Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TEOFISTO C. GANCHO-ON v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 184645 2009-10-30	JOSE T. BARBIETO v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Time and again, courts have refrained from even expressing an opinion in a case where the issues have become moot and academic, there being no more justiciable controversy to speak of, so that a determination thereof would be of no practical use or value.[25] Where the issue has become moot and academic, there is no actual substantial relief to which Maj. Gen. Barbieto would be entitled and which would be negated by the dismissal of his Petition as regards the preventive suspension order of the ODO-MOLEO.[26]
	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. 158195 2005-12-16	JAMES L. KING v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
It is a rule of universal application, almost, that courts of justice constituted to pass upon substantial rights will not consider questions in which no actual interests are involved; they decline jurisdiction of moot cases. And where the issue has become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. There is no actual substantial relief to which petitioners would be entitled and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition.[13] The prayer in the instant petition is for the nullification of the Court of Appeals' Resolutions dated December 18, 2002, and April 8, 2003 which granted the preliminary injunction and denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration, respectively. With the appellate court's subsequent resolution of the petition for certiorari and its nullification of the writ of preliminary attachment issued by the trial court, thus making permanent the appellate court's preliminary injunction, this petition has become moot and academic. In Kho v. Court of Appeals,[14] we held that the issuance of a final injunction renders any question on the preliminary injunctive order moot and academic although the decision granting a final injunction is pending appeal. Here, the appellate court's decision granting the final injunction was not even appealed.
	GR NO. 137881 2005-08-19	ISAAC DELGADO v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Said final decision rendered moot and academic not only petitioners' petition before this Court but also the decision it rendered on December 21, 2004. Needless to stress, courts exist to decide actual controversies, not to give opinions upon abstract propositions. That a court will not sit for the purpose of trying moot cases and spend its time in deciding questions the resolution of which can not in any way affect the rights of the person or persons presenting them is well settled. Where the issues have become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, thereby rendering the resolution of the same of no practical use or value.[9] As succinctly stated in Gancho-on vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment:[10]
	GR No. 158466 2004-06-15	PABLO V. OCAMPO v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In the recent case of Enrile vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal,[20] we ruled that a case becomes moot and academic when there is no more actual controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits. Worth reiterating is our pronouncement in Gancho-on vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment, thus:[21]
	GR No. 132986 2004-05-19	JUAN PONCE ENRILE v. SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Likewise, in Gancho-on vs. Secretary of Labor and Employment,[8] we ruled:"It is a rule of universal application that courts of justice constituted to pass upon substantial rights will not consider questions in which no actual interests are involved; they decline jurisdiction of moot cases. And where the issue has become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. There is no actual substantial relief to which petitioners would be entitled and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition."
	GR No. 132795 2004-03-10	BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS v. FLORENTINO A. TUAZON AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Gancho-on vs. Sec. of Labor and Employment,[26] the Court pronounced: It is a rule of universal application, almost, that courts of justice constituted to pass upon substantial rights will not consider questions in which no actual interests are involved; they decline jurisdiction of moot cases. And where the issue has become moot and academic…[t]here is no actual substantial relief to which petitioners would be entitled and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition"[27] The prayer in the present petition was for the writ of preliminary injunction issued by Branch 66 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati to be lifted so that the writ of execution may be enforced and the foreclosure of the real estate mortgage constituted in petitioner's favor may finally be undertaken. With the subsequent titling of the real property in the name of petitioner, by virtue of an auction sale conducted by the City Government of Makati, the petition may be considered moot and academic.
	GR No. 125560 2003-12-04	ELIZA FRANCISCO BAGGENSTOS v. CA CARPIO, J.
The rule is that where the issues have become moot, there is no justiciable controversy. Resolution of the case would serve no practical use. Obviously, the assailed Resolution of the Court of Appeals, which dismissed Baggenstos' Petition for Annulment of Judgments, Orders and Writs, has become inconsequential. Baggenstos is no longer entitled to any actual and substantial relief that the dismissal of her petition could negate.[15] Whatever the courts, including this Court, say on the issues raised in her petition constitutes opinion on academic issues.