Facts:

The case involves Walter Balasabas as the petitioner and Hon. Cipriano Vamenta, Jr., as the presiding judge of Branch III of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Negros Oriental, along with private respondents Genoveva Gonzales, Alicia Gonzales, Ignacio Gonzales, Elvira Gonzales, and Adelaida Gonzales, who is married to Arnulfo Umbac. The petition for certiorari was filed on July 11, 1977, seeking to annul two orders issued by Judge Vamenta. The first order, dated March 25, 1977, granted a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, which required Balasabas to restore possession of a disputed land to the private respondents and to maintain the status quo, while also restraining him from harvesting and milling sugarcane on the property. The second order, dated May 19, 1977, denied Balasabas' motion for reconsideration regarding the first order. The case originated from Civil Case No. 6469, which was a suit for specific performance with a preliminary mandatory injunction. The...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Petitioner Walter Balasabas filed a petition for certiorari seeking to set aside certain orders issued by the respondent Judge Cipriano Vamenta Jr. of Negros Oriental.
• The orders in question, issued in a civil case for Specific Performance with Preliminary Mandatory Injunction (Civil Case No. 6469), pertained to the restoration of possession of a parcel of land to the private respondents.
• The first order, dated March 25, 1977, granted a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction requiring petitioner to restore the land in question to the private respondents, and restraining him from undertaking activities such as harvesting and milling sugarcane.
• A subsequent order dated May 19, 1977, denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of the said injunction order.

Procedural Developments

• The petition for certiorari was filed by petitioner on July 11, 1977, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the respondent Judge and emphasizing the absence of any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.
• On July 21, 1977, the Court ordered the respondents to file their comments on the petition, without giving due course to the petition itself.
• Private respondents filed their comments on September 12, 1977, following an extension, and these comments were later reiterated and adopted by respondent Judge in his subsequent rulings.
• After the pleadings were closed, further memoranda were filed by both parties leading to additional submissions.

Manifestation by Private Respondents

• On October 20, 1977, private respondents, through counsel, formally manifested before the respondent Court that:
• Despite the Order of March 25, 1977, they had not taken physical possession of the land in question;
• They did not intend to take possession or cultivate the land for sugarcane, citing adverse economic conditions affecting the sugar industry;
• They had no objection to petitioner taking possession of the land during the pendency of the main action.
• This written manifestation became part of the record and played a crucial role in the resolution of the petition.

Petitioner’s Position Despite the Manifestation

• Petitioner contended that the issues raised in the petition remained relevant even though the private respondents had manifested their lack of interest in occupying the land.
• He argued that private respondents might adopt an inconsistent stand in the future, thereby necessitating a resolution on the contested issues.
• Despite his insistence, the practical effect of the respondents’ manifestation was a diminution of the live controversy the petition sought to address.

Resulting Situation

• The clear manifestation by the respondents effectively rendered the petition for certiorari moot and academic.
• The dispute over possession of the land, which was the subject of the interlocutory relief sought, had by then lost its contentious character, thereby obviating the need for the petition.

Issue:

Whether the petition for certiorari should be granted to set aside the respondent Judge’s order issuing the Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction.

• Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order.
• Whether there was any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available to the petitioner aside from the petition for certiorari.

Whether the manifestation by the private respondents declaring their intent not to take possession of the land rendered the petition moot and academic.

• Whether the subsequent uncontroversial manifestation affected the justiciability of the issues raised by the petitioner.
• Whether the existence of a live controversy was necessary for the petition to proceed.

• Whether the petitioner’s contention that the issues might reemerge as inconsistent stands between the parties had any merit in light of the respondents’ manifest withdrawal from the dispute.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)