Case Summary (G.R. No. 179571)
Petition for Review on Certiorari
- The case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.
- The petition challenges the decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 12, 2007, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) order dismissing Civil Case No. 00-656 as moot and academic.
- The RTC's order was issued on January 4, 2006.
Background of the Case
- Spouses Potenciano and Erlinda Ilusorio owned a parcel of land and a cottage within the Baguio Country Club Corporation (BCCC) premises.
- BCCC was responsible for providing access, electricity, and water supply to the cottage.
- In 1999, BCCC, through its manager Anthony R. De Leon, cut off the electric and water supply without prior notice, making the cottage unusable for guests.
- Erlinda filed a complaint for injunction, mandamus, and damages against BCCC and De Leon, seeking access and utility services, along with P5,500,000.00 in damages.
Respondents' Defense
- BCCC and De Leon contended that Erlinda lacked legal capacity to sue since the cottage was registered solely in Potenciano's name.
- They argued that Erlinda had no grounds to be appointed as Potenciano's guardian ad litem.
- The respondents claimed that the services were cut off and personal properties were removed due to safety concerns, following Potenciano's instructions.
RTC Proceedings
- The RTC denied Erlinda's motion to be appointed as guardian ad litem and refused to dismiss the complaint.
- Both parties filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied.
- Following Potenciano's death on June 28, 2001, Erlinda's petition for certiorari was dismissed by the Court of Appeals as moot.
Subsequent Developments
- Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing it was moot due to the removal of the cottage in 2003.
- Erlinda opposed this, asserting that her claims for damages remained valid despite the cottage's removal.
- The RTC ultimately dismissed Civil Case No. 00-656 on January 4, 2006, and denied Erlinda's motion for reconsideration.
Court of Appeals Decision
- Erlinda appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that her claim for damages could stand independently of the main action for mandamus and injunction.
- On July 12, 2007, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's dismissal, stating that the removal of the cottage rendered the requests for access and utilities moot and that the damages claim was ancillary.
Grounds for Petition
- Erlinda filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, asserting two main issues:
- The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the cause of action for damages was ancillary and could not stand alone.
- The Court of Appeals erred in declaring the cause of action for damages moot and academic, denying her entitlement to damages and attorney's fees.
Supreme Court's Ruling on Mootness
- The Supreme Court clarified that an issue is moot when it no longer presents a justiciable controversy, rendering a declaration on the issue of no practical use.
- The Court acknowledged that Erlinda's action for mandamus and injunction was indeed moot due to the cottage's removal.
- However, the Court emphasized that the claim for damages, which arose from the alleged unlawful deprivation of Erlinda's rights, should not have been dismisse...continue reading