Case Digest (G.R. No. L-48315)
Facts:
Atty. Dominador B. Borje v. Hon. Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, Branch II, Violeta Galiciniao, Misamis Occidental Water District, and the Chairman of the Board, G.R. No. L-48315, February 27, 1979, First Division, Guerrero, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Atty. Dominador B. Borje alleged that, as counsel representing the water-consuming public of Ozamiz City, he received deficient "blank bills" from the Misamis Occidental Water District (the Water District) that lacked meter readings, cubic meter counts and itemized amounts; he refused to pay such bills and his service was disconnected on February 6, 1978. He filed Special Civil Case No. OZ-686 for damages with a prayer for a preliminary mandatory injunction before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Misamis Occidental, Branch II.
The CFI initially issued injunctive orders: on February 8, 1978 it enjoined respondents from disconnecting petitioner’s service; on February 9, 1978 it ordered reconnection after learning the line had been cut. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss on February 15, 1978, arguing lack of jurisdiction because the action was in the nature of a special proceeding and that another action (Special Civil Case No. 0390) involving similar parties and issues was pending. Petitioner opposed the motion on February 27, 1978, distinguishing the pending rate-constitutionality suit from his damages action.
On March 9, 1978, Judge Melecio A. Genato of the CFI dismissed petitioner’s complaint as moot and academic on the ground that respondents had already reconnected service and that there was no malice in the disconnection. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging the dismissal violated Section 1, Rule 36, Revised Rules of Court and that the dismissal was a "midnight order" issued without authority. The CFI, through Hon. Bienvenido A. Ebarle, denied reconsideration on April 18, 1978, affirming dismissal on the merits and finding absence of malice (noting other consumers were also disconnected).
Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari and/or mandamus (seeking relief for the alleged grave abus...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of First Instance commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by dismissing petitioner’s complaint without affording him a hearing and without requiring a motion to dismiss on the grounds relied upon by the trial court?
- Was dismissal of the complaint proper on the basis that the case had become moot/academic because petitioner’s water service had been reconnected and that there was no ma...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)