Facts:

The case titled "The Acting Director or Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Telecommunications, the Acting Regional Superintendent, Region No. 2 of the Bureau of Telecommunications and the Acting Station Manager, Bureau of Telecommunications, and all agents or representatives acting in their behalf, Petitioners, vs. Hon. Mariano V. Agcaoili, as Presiding Judge of Branch VII of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, and Republic Telephone Company, Inc., Respondents" concerns a legal dispute initiated on January 3, 1972. Respondent Republic Telephone Company, Inc. filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija on March 10, 1971, against the petitioners, who were officials of the Bureau of Telecommunications. The private company, claiming to be the sole operator of a telephone system in Cabanatuan City since 1958, asserted that the Bureau of Telecommunications began construction of a competing telephone system in the same area on March 3, 1969, infrin

...

Facts:

Background Context

• The case involves petitioners who are acting officials and representatives of the Bureau of Telecommunications, namely the Acting Director or Officer-in-Charge, the Acting Regional Superintendent of Region No. 2, and the Acting Station Manager, as well as their agents.
• The respondents include the Honorable Mariano V. Agcaoili, then Presiding Judge of Branch VII of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, and Republic Telephone Company, Inc.
• The dispute centers on an order of preliminary injunction issued by respondent Judge Agcaoili restraining the petitioners from operating and maintaining their telephone system in Cabanatuan City.

Initiation of the Controversy

• Republic Telephone Company, Inc. filed a suit for injunction on March 10, 1971, alleging that although it had been efficiently operating a private telephone system in Cabanatuan City since 1958—with substantial investment—the Bureau of Telecommunications, through its petitioners, initiated the construction of an additional telephone system on March 3, 1969.
• The new project by the Bureau was alleged to be intended for profit by serving both government offices and the private sector, thereby resulting in unfair competition against the established private operator.

Trial Court Proceedings and Orders

• Respondent Judge Agcaoili, after hearing the opposition from the petitioners (the officials of the Bureau), issued a writ of preliminary injunction on August 3, 1971. This injunction was secured by Republic Telephone Company, Inc. posting a bond amounting to P150,000.00.
• Subsequent orders by the same judge on October 5, 1971, and November 17, 1971, denied motions to lift the injunction and to dismiss the case.
• The petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court on January 3, 1972, challenging the jurisdictional validity of the lower court’s orders.

Supreme Court Proceedings

• Within three days of the petition’s filing, the Supreme Court directed respondent Judge and Republic Telephone Company, Inc. to comment within ten days.
• Republic Telephone Company, Inc. provided its comment on January 21, 1972, and was later ordered on January 27, 1972, to file an answer to the petition.
• Eventually, an answer was filed on behalf of Republic Telephone Company, Inc.

Motion to Dismiss and Subsequent Developments

• On April 12, 1972, Republic Telephone Company, Inc., through its counsel, moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the petition had become moot and academic.
• The dismissal motion was supported by the fact that the Supreme Court had not issued the preliminary injunction sought by the petitioners and that the lower court had already rendered a decision in Civil Case No. 5321—making the writ of preliminary injunction permanent.
• Petitioners responded on May 10, 1972, by noting that the decision had not become final and executory, as they had filed a Motion for Reconsideration within the 30-day appeal period.

Final Developments

• The Supreme Court observed that the fate of the contested orders depended on the final disposition of the lower court case and that the relief sought in the petition was subject to the remedy of appeal or the pending motion for reconsideration.
• Ultimately, the issue was rendered moot because the case had effectively advanced before the lower court, and the petitioners’ challenge became academic in light of the pending resolution through ordinary appellate processes.

Issue:

Mootness and Academic Nature of the Petition

• Whether the petition for certiorari and prohibition remained a viable remedy when the disputed orders had not attained finality.
• Whether the petitioners’ challenge was rendered moot due to the lower court’s pending decision and the alternative remedy available via appeal or motion for reconsideration.

Jurisdictional Grounds

• Whether the jurisdictional challenge raised by the petitioners against the orders of respondent Judge was valid in light of the fact that the underlying case continued in the lower court.
• Whether the petitioners, as government officials, had raised a justiciable issue that could bypass the available appellate remedies.

Effect of the Motion for Reconsideration

• Whether the pending Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioners could provide an adequate remedy to contest the permanent enforcement of the preliminary injunction.
• How the pending motion affected the finality of the lower court’s decision and, consequently, the appropriateness of granting certiorari and prohibition.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)