Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GERARDO O. LANUZA v. MA. VIVIAN YUCHENGCO

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 198860 2012-07-23	ABRAHAM RIMANDO v. NAGUILIAN EMISSION TESTING CENTER 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]
	GR No. 176135 2009-06-16	CARLOS IRWIN G. BALDO v. COMELEC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
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. Courts will not determine a moot question in a case in which no practical relief can be granted.[5] It is unnecessary to indulge in academic discussion of a case presenting a moot question,[6] as a judgment thereon cannot have any practical legal effect or, in the nature of things, cannot be enforced.[7]
	GR No. 170338 2008-12-23	GARCILLANO v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC INFORMATION NACHURA, J.
The Court, however, dismisses G.R. No. 170338 for being moot and academic. Repeatedly stressed in our prior decisions is the principle that the exercise by this Court of judicial power is limited to the determination and resolution of actual cases and controversies.[35] By actual cases, we mean existing conflicts appropriate or ripe for judicial determination, not conjectural or anticipatory, for otherwise the decision of the Court will amount to an advisory opinion. The power of judicial inquiry does not extend to hypothetical questions because any attempt at abstraction could only lead to dialectics and barren legal questions and to sterile conclusions unrelated to actualities.[36] Neither will the Court determine a moot question in a case in which no practical relief can be granted. A case becomes moot when its purpose has become stale.[37] It is unnecessary to indulge in academic discussion of a case presenting a moot question as a judgment thereon cannot have any practical legal effect or, in the nature of things, cannot be enforced.[38]
	GR No. 176296 2008-06-30	INDIRA R. FERNANDEZ v. COMELEC NACHURA, J.
Considering that the term of the contested office has already expired, the petition has been rendered moot and academic.[10] Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9164[11] provides that the term of the SK officials elected in the July 15, 2002 synchronized barangay and SK elections shall be 3 years, commencing on August 15, 2002, and ending at noon on November 30, 2005.[12] R.A. 9340,[13] however, amended the aforesaid law and reset the barangay and SK elections to October 2007, thereby extending the term of those elected in 2002 up to noon of November 30, 2007.[14] On the latter date, therefore, the term of the barangay and SK officials elected in 2002 expired. It is thus an exercise in futility for the Court to indulge itself in a review of the records and in an academic discussion of the applicable legal principles to determine who really won the said elections, because 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.[15]
	GR No. 168338 2008-02-15	FRANCISCO CHAVEZ v. RAUL M. GONZALES PUNO, C.J.
Thus, in line with the liberal policy of this Court on locus standi when a case involves an issue of overarching significance to our society,[22] we therefore brush aside technicalities of procedure and take cognizance of this petition,[23] seeing as it involves a challenge to the most exalted of all the civil rights, the freedom of expression. The petition raises other issues like the extent of the right to information of the public. It is fundamental, however, that we need not address all issues but only the most decisive one which in the case at bar is whether the acts of the respondents abridge freedom of speech and of the press.
	BM No. 1491 2007-11-28	ATTY. SILVESTRE H. BELLO III v. ATTYS. JOSE ANSELMO I. CADIZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As a result of the conduct of the 2007 IBP Elections for Governor for Northern Luzon, as well as the proclamation of the winner therein, the present complaint of Atty. Bello has been rendered academic or irrelevant. With the expiration of the tenure of the contested position subject of the present complaint, no practical or useful purpose would be served by passing on the merits of the contentions of the parties to the controversy. And this Court finds it unnecessary to indulge in academic discussion of a case presenting a moot question,[14] as a judgment thereon cannot have any practical legal effect or, in the nature of things, cannot be enforced.[15] Stated otherwise, this Court will not determine a moot question in a case in which no practical relief can be granted.[16]
	GR No. 174668 2007-09-12	MARLON T. SALES v. COMELEC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
With the expiration of the tenure of the contested mayoralty position subject of this Petition on 30 June 2007, no practical or useful purpose would be served by passing on the merits of Sales's contentions. Courts will not determine a moot question in a case in which no practical relief can be granted.[11] It is unnecessary to indulge in academic discussion of a case presenting a moot question,[12] as a judgment thereon cannot have any practical legal effect or, in the nature of things, cannot be enforced.[13]
	GR NO. 150537 2007-07-04	EDGARDO M. OANIA v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As such, it is unnecessary to indulge in academic discussion of a case presenting a moot question, as a judgment thereon cannot have any practical legal effect, or in the nature of things, cannot be enforced.[9] The Court will refrain from expressing its opinion in a case where no practical relief may be granted in view of a supervening event.[10]
	GR NO. 128509 2006-08-22	ROBLE ARRASTRE v. ALTAGRACIA VILLAFLOR CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Indeed, Courts will not determine a moot question in a case in which no practical relief can be granted. It is unnecessary to indulge in academic discussion of a case presenting a moot question as a judgment thereon cannot have any practical legal effect or, in the nature of things, cannot be enforced.[29] However, we are constrained to render judgment herein pursuant to our symbolic function of educating the bench and the bar.[30] For another, this case comes within the rule that courts will decide a question otherwise moot and academic if it is "capable of repetition yet evading review."[31]