G.R. No. 231145 - Social Security System vs. Hon. Gina M. Bibat-Palamos, in her capacity as Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 108, Regional Trial Court of Pasay City

NGCP, a private corporation granted a franchise under Republic Act No. 9511, is mandated “to operate, manage and maintain” the nation’s transmission system.
On July 16, 2015, NGCP commenced expropriation proceedings by filing a Complaint for expropriating a 46,218 sq. m. parcel of land registered in the name of the Republic of the Philippines and occupied by SSS, asserting that the property was needed for its Pasay 230kV Substation Project to meet the growing electricity demand in the Greater Manila Area.
The Complaint was later amended to remove other defendants and focus solely on SSS as the respondent.

NGCP filed an Urgent Motion on November 2, 2016, seeking to deposit the provisional amount of PHP 1,460,928,000.00 (the property’s value based on the Bureau of Internal Revenue’s zonal valuation) with the court, coupled with a request for an immediate order granting NGCP possession of the property.
SSS opposed the motion, and the case progressed with NGCP submitting replies in connection with SSS’s Opposition.
On December 20, 2016, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) directed NGCP to deposit the required amount with the Office of the Clerk of Court.
Following its compliance with the RTC’s order, NGCP filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for the issuance of a writ of possession, which was opposed by SSS.

On March 2, 2017, the RTC granted NGCP’s motion by issuing a writ of possession. The court based its order on Section 6 of RA 10752, which permits the issuance of a writ of possession upon the deposit of the required amount.
SSS sought for reconsideration of this decision; however, on April 24, 2017, the RTC denied the request, thereby reaffirming its earlier decision.
The recorded proceedings include submission of oppositions, replies, memoranda by both parties, and the issuance of a status quo ante order by the Court on June 21, 2017, enjoining the implementation of the writ of possession.

On June 30, 2020, NGCP filed a Motion to Remand the case records to the RTC, indicating its intention to withdraw the expropriation complaint as it started exploring alternative sites amid the uncertainty of project commencement.
NGCP’s withdrawal motion could not be acted upon until the case records were remanded.
On March 7, 2022, SSS filed a Motion to Withdraw the Petition, noting that the RTC had, on July 21, 2021, granted NGCP’s Motion to Withdraw its expropriation complaint and released the provisional deposits.
With the main expropriation proceeding effectively terminated, the issues raised in SSS’s petition for certiorari became moot.

Whether the Petition for Certiorari filed by SSS should be dismissed on the ground of mootness.

SSS argued that NGCP, as a private corporation, lacked proper deputation to initiate expropriation proceedings without representation by the Office of the Solicitor General or the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel.
SSS further contended that the RTC abused its discretion in issuing the writ of possession because Section 6 of RA 10752 applies only to government agencies concerning properties necessary for national infrastructure projects.
SSS questioned NGCP’s authority to expropriate a government-owned property already in public use and alleged that no genuine necessity for expropriation existed since NGCP had made no offer to purchase the property.
The central issue for the Court, however, became whether the petition should be dismissed because the expropriation case had been withdrawn, rendering the review of the interlocutory order without practical relief.