Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TEOFILO C. VILLARICO v. CA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	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. 183171 2008-08-14	FRANCISCO S. TATAD v. COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS REYES, R.T., J.
An issue becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy. In such a case, there is no actual substantial relief which a petitioner would be entitled to and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition.[12] We have consistently held that courts will not determine a moot question in a case in which no practical relief will be granted.[13]
	GR No. 171373 2008-06-18	LLOYD'S ENTERPRISES v. SPS. FERDINAND AND PERSEVERANDA DOLLETON TINGA, J,
Whether petitioner is a mortgagee-purchaser in good faith and for value is a factual issue. In a petition for review, only questions of law may be raised. Even though there are exceptions, petitioner did not show that this case is one of them.[14] Moreover, the RTC and the Court of Appeals concur that petitioner did not exercise due diligence in ascertaining the true ownership of the subject property, notwithstanding the existence of circumstances which should have impelled it to investigate further. Well-settled is the rule that factual findings of the RTC, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are accorded great weight and respect by this Court.
	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. 149404 2006-09-15	MA. SALVACION G. AQUINO v. CA GARCIA, J.
Hornbook is the rule that in a petition for review, only errors of law may be raised.[6] Section 1 of Rule 45 expressly says so, to wit:Section 1. Filing of petition with the Supreme Court. - A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. [Emphasis supplied] On the other hand, in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, only jurisdictional issues may be raised, as when a court or tribunal has acted "without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction." The extraordinary writ of certiorari cannot legally be used for any other purpose. In a special civil action for certiorari, the Court cannot correct errors of fact which the lower court or tribunal may have committed.
	GR NO. 163818 2005-10-20	SEBASTIAN SERAG v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
On the first issue, we find the contention of the private respondent to be barren of merit. A motion is considered moot when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy because the issues involved have become academic or dead.[28] Courts will not determine a moot question in which no practical relief can be granted.[29] However, the Court will decide a question otherwise moot and academic if it is capable of repetition, yet evading review.[30]
	GR NO. 157033 2005-03-28	GERARDO O. LANUZA v. MA. VIVIAN YUCHENGCO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
No practical or useful purpose would be served by passing on the merits of respondents' disqualification, which, as it stands is a non-issue. Courts will not determine a moot question in a case in which no practical relief can be granted.[16] It is unnecessary to indulge in academic discussion of a case presenting a moot question[17] as a judgment thereon cannot have any practical legal effect or, in the nature of things, cannot be enforced.[18]
	GR NO. 124378 2005-03-08	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
From the above-mentioned assignment of errors, petitioner palpably disputes the findings of facts and the appreciation of evidence made by the trial court and later affirmed by respondent court. It is apodictic that in a petition for review, only questions of law may be raised[18] for the reason that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and generally does not weigh anew the evidence already passed upon by the Court of Appeals.[19] Corollarily, the factual findings of the Court of Appeals affirming those of the trial court bind this Court when such findings are supported by substantial evidence. In the case at hand, no reversible error could be attributed to the Court of Appeals in espousing conclusions of facts similar to the trial court on petitioner's liability for the damages suffered by private respondents.[20]