Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALFREDO M. DESAVILLE v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR NOS. 150329-30 2007-09-11	RONALD K. GO v. SANDIGANBAYAN TINGA, J.
Courts of justice constituted to pass upon substantial rights will not consider questions where no actual interests are involved. Courts generally 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. This Court, therefore, ought to abstain from expressing its opinion in the case at bar where no legal relief is needed or called for.[30]
	GR NO. 153785 2006-08-03	VERONIQUE T. HUIBONHOA TINGA J.
[9] Desaville, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128310, August 13, 2004, 436 SCRA 387, 391.
	GR NO. 139460 2006-03-31	KOREA EXCHANGE BANK v. ROGELIO C. GONZALES TINGA, 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.[39]
	GR NO. 141746 2005-12-15	BARING v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, 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. This Court will therefore abstain from expressing its opinion in a case where no legal relief is needed or called for. [25] WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED.