6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In its April 4, 2011 Decision,[17] the CA debunked the argument of the Republic that the injunction case is in reality an action for the reversal of the POEA's order of cancellation of license over which the DOLE Secretary has jurisdiction. It explained that contrary to the Republic's contention, the injunction case is only meant to determine the legality or propriety of the immediate cancellation of Principalia's license. This is pursuant to Principalia's claim that under the 2002 POEA Rules, it has the right to be protected from an unwarranted immediate execution of a cancellation order. Thus, pursuant to BP 129 which confers upon the RTC jurisdiction over actions for injunction, the trial court correctly assumed jurisdiction over the injunction case. The CA further noted that the RTC had not even ruled yet on the merits of the injunction case and thus, the Republic cannot claim that the latter already intruded into a matter that falls under the exclusive realm of authority of the DOLE Secretary. Lastly, it opined that the provisions of the 2002 POEA Rules upon which the Republic heavily relies cannot deprive the regular courts of jurisdiction to entertain an injunction complaint. Accordingly, the CA found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in issuing its assailed Orders. In a Resolution[18] dated August 31, 2011, the CA stood its ground by denying the Republic's Motion for Reconsideration. Unrelenting in its opinion that the RTC should have dismissed outright the injunction suit, the Republic filed this Petition on October 20, 2011. However, on May 22, 2013, Principalia, filed a Motion to Dismiss (With Leave of Court) [19] before the RTC. It averred that due to the length of time that the case has been pending, it is no longer interested in pursuing the same. Aside from this, Principalia believed that the issues involved in this case have already become moot and academic in view of the subsequent renewal of its license. It thus prayed that its action for injunction be dismissed pursuant to Section 2,[20] Rule 17 of the Rules of Court. On June 5, 2013, the RTC granted the motion and dismissed the case.[21] The Parties' Arguments Principalia, aside from refuting the substantial arguments of the Republic, asserts that the present Petition is already moot and academic. This is in view of the fact that its 2007 license which was ordered cancelled by the POEA had already long expired and in fact has been renewed by the POEA many times over. Principalia thus asserts that a ruling on this Petition will no longer be of practical value considering that the subject matter that Principalia then sought to enjoin was the immediate enforcement of the POEA Order cancelling its 2007 license. For this reason, the Petition should be dismissed.[22] The Republic, on the other hand, argues that the renewal of Principal's license does not bar this Court from ruling on the matters raised in the Petition. Even assuming that the Petition has indeed become moot and academic, the case at bench falls under the exceptions that authorize courts to pass upon questions that are already moot. To farther convince the Court, the Republic avers that in view of the plethora of pending elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61203 3/9