In a 10-page decision, the appellate court’s Special Fifteenth Division through Associate Justice Ramon Garcia said the petition questioning the TRO had become moot after the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court Branch 256 granted the subdivision’s homeowners a preliminary mandatory injunction that restrained the Parañaque City government from continuing with its action and after the City government and the homeowners association have later agreed to have the case submitted for resolution at the lower court.
The case started more than seven years ago when then Parañaque City Mayor Joey Marquez issued an executive order seeking to open the roads of Aguirre Avenue and El Grande in BF Homes to public vehicular traffic.
Marquez then directed the president of the United BF Homeowners’ Association (UBFHA) to dismantle and remove all the road barricades inside the BF Homes within a week’s period.
But the homeowners association filed an appeal before the Regional Trial Court claiming that the executive order was an improper exercise of police power since there had been no enabling ordinance as required by the Local Government Code and the same was discriminatory and oppressive because it singled out BF Homes while it exempted the other subdivisions in Parañaque City.
In addition, residents from Muntinlupa and Las Piñas also filed a suit claiming that BF Homes actually comprises contiguous areas in the said places whose residents use the common network everyday were equally and seriously affected by the Parañaque City ordinance. The homeowners were able to secure a temporary restraining order from the court. This prompted the Parañaque City government to take the issue to the Court of Appeals.
The CA said the granting of the preliminary mandatory injunction by the lower court rendered moot and academic the question the propriety and regularity of the issuance of the temporary restraining order.
"Jurisprudence is replete that where a supervening circumstance has rendered the petition moot and academic for all practical purposes, the petition should be dismissed," the CA said.
Magistrates Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Mario L. Guarina III concurred with the ruling which explained that "courts are called upon to resolve actual cases and controversies, not to render advisory opinions.They cannot take cognizance of moot and academic questions, subject to notable exceptions involving constitutional issues."
The appellate court added that courts do not adjudicate moot cases,with judicial power being limited to the determination of actual controversies.