10/12/2019
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
WHETHER PRIVATE RESPONDENTS WERE ENTITLED TO INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.
THE COURT'S RULING
The petition is meritorious.
Before proceeding to the merits of the case, a resolution of certain procedural matters
is in order.
Case mooted due to supervening events
At the onset, the present case has been rendered moot and academic. A moot and
academic case is one that ceases to present a justifiable controversy by virtue of
supervening events, so that declaration thereon would be of no practical value.[11] In
City Government of Baguio v. Atty. Masweng (contempt case),[12] the Court set aside
the provisional remedies Atty. Masweng issued in NCIP Case Nos. 29-CAR-09 and 31CAR-09 after he was found guilty of indirect contempt, to wit:
In this case, respondent was charged with indirect contempt for issuing the
subject orders enjoining the implementation of demolition orders against
illegal structures constructed on a portion of the Busol Watershed
Reservation located at Aurora Hill, Baguio City.
xxxx
The said orders clearly contravene our ruling in G.R. No. 180206 that those
owners of houses and structures covered by the demolition orders issued by
petitioner are not entitled to the injunctive relief previously granted by
respondent.
xxxx
As mentioned earlier, the Court while recognizing that the NCIP is
empowered to issue temporary restraining orders and writs of preliminary
injunction, nevertheless ruled that petitioners in the injunction case seeking
to restrain the implementation of the subject demolition order are not
entitled to such relief. Petitioner City Government of Baguio in issuing the
demolition advices are simply enforcing the previous demolition orders
against the same occupants or claimants or their agents and successors-ininterest, only to be thwarted anew by the injunctive orders and, writs issued
by respondent. Despite the Court's pronouncements in G.R. No. 180206 that
no such clear legal right exists in favor of those occupants or claimants to
restrain the enforcement of the demolition orders issued by petitioner, and
hence there remains no legal impediment to bar their implementation,
respondent still issued the temporary restraining orders and writs of
preliminary injunction. x x x
xxxx
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64367
3/13