Facts:

This case, titled Alfredo Aberin and Others vs. Court of Appeals, Norberto S. Amoranto, Mariano M. Sta. Romana, Jr., Eduardo T. Paredes, Saturnino V. Bermudez, Romulo G. Lucasan, Florentino A. Lapus, Nereo J. Paculdo, and Gloria G. Paculdo, arises from a dispute involving licensed vendors in Quezon City who were aggrieved by what they claimed as the illegal operation of a private market, the Nepa-Q-Mart. The petitioners, led by Alfredo Aberin, filed Civil Case No. Q-8129 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Branch IX) on March 10, 1966, seeking certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against the City of Quezon and various city officials, including the Mayor and the Vice Mayor. The petitioners aimed to declare the contract allowing the operation of the Nepa-Q-Mart as "ultra vires," meaning it was beyond the legal authority granted to the city based on a resolution passed by the Quezon City Council. The petitioners claimed that the operation of this market negatively i

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Petitioners Alfredo Aberin and others, all licensed vendors of fresh meat, fruits, vegetables, fish, and other perishable goods, as well as stall holders in various Quezon City markets, brought the action.
• The petition was filed in Civil Case No. Q-8129 before the Court of First Instance (C.F.I.) of Rizal, Quezon City Branch (IX) seeking certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and/or declaratory relief with preliminary injunction.
• The petition challenged the validity of a contract (exhibit ‘E’) and the accompanying resolutions (exhibits ‘A’ and ‘G’) which allegedly granted a “franchise” to operate a private market and slaughterhouse (Nepa-Q-Mart)—a contract claimed to have been entered into ultra vires by Quezon City officials.

Allegations and Claims by the Petitioners

• Petitioners alleged that the contract between Quezon City and the Paculdos, executed under Quezon City Council Resolution No. 6750, S-64, was illegal, ultra vires, null and void, and lacked lawful authority.
• They contended that the illegal operation of the Nepa-Q-Mart by the respondents had caused a diminution in their respective businesses.
• The partial stipulation of facts in the case narrowed the issues to the validity of the contract, the authority of Quezon City to enter into it, proper execution under corporate powers, and the propriety of the petition itself.

Decision of the Trial Court

• Honorable Lourdes P. San Diego, presiding judge of the C.F.I. of Rizal, Branch IX, Quezon City, ruled in favor of the petitioners.
• The trial court found the contract and the resolutions authorizing it to be ultra vires, null and void, and without force and effect.
• It also declared that petitioners had the standing to question the contract and granted them the relief sought.
• The order directed the respondents to refrain from enforcing the disputed contract, and it ordered the respondent City Mayor to revoke permits and authorizations given to respondent Paculdo for operating the Nepa-Q-Mart slaughterhouse, while the operation of a private shopping center for non-perishable goods was left unaffected.

Motion for Immediate Execution and Subsequent Developments

• On April 18, 1966, petitioners moved for immediate execution of the trial court decision, arguing that public interest necessitated prompt enforcement due to potential delays from appeal.
• Respondents opposed the motion, citing limitations under Section 2 of Rule 39, Rules of Court, when issues of good cause for immediate execution were absent.
• Judge San Diego granted the motion for immediate execution on August 1, 1966, subject to the petitioners posting a bond of P100,000.00.
• The order for immediate execution was later set aside by the Court of Appeals after reviewing the appeal in CA Case No. 37968-R.

Proceedings in the Court of Appeals and Mootness of the Matter

• The Court of Appeals, composed of a Special Division of Five Justices, found that the case involved both questions of law (i.e., the validity of the contract) and questions of fact (i.e., conditions regarding sanitation and cold storage in the market).
• The appellate majority held that certain issues, including alleged “official excesses” by Quezon City officials, were better resolved in the main appeal.
• The appellate decision granted the petition to set aside the lower court’s immediate execution order.
• Subsequent facts rendered the case moot and academic:
• An investigation confirmed that the Nepa-Q-Mart slaughterhouse had ceased operations.
• The market premises had been reconstructed following a fire and under a later valid resolution of the City Council.
• The personnel implicated in the original contract (e.g., former Mayor and Councilors) were no longer in office, negating the relevance of their past acts.
• Both the Quezon City Government and petitioners acknowledged, in their respective manifestations, that the case was now moot and academic.

Issue:

Validity and Authority of the Questioned Contract

• Whether the contract executed by Quezon City with the Paculdos was within the corporate powers of the city and executed in a regular and valid manner.
• Whether the contract, along with the resolutions authorizing it, was ultra vires, null and void.

Standing and Procedural Validity of the Petition

• Whether petitioners had the capacity to question the validity of the contract and the actions taken by Quezon City officials.
• Whether the petition for certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, and/or declaratory relief was proper in form and substance.

Immediate Execution Pending Appeal

• Whether a writ of immediate execution could be issued pending appeal under Section 2 of Rule 39, taking into account the reasons presented by petitioners and the opposition by respondents.
• Whether, given the imminent expiry of the respondent city officials’ terms and the public interest implicated, immediate execution was justified.

Mootness and Academic Character of the Controversy

• Whether changed circumstances—such as the cessation of operations at the Nepa-Q-Mart slaughterhouse, reconstruction of the market, and changes in the composition of city officials—rendered the case moot and merely academic.
• Whether there remained any actionable instance that could justify the enforcement of the lower court’s order, given that the disputed issues had lost practical effect.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)