March 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 187571 : March 05, 2012]
FILIPINO ACADEMY OF MOVIE ARTS AND SCIENCES, INC., REPRESENTED BY JUMMY A. TIU V. ART M. PADUA, ANGEL CALSO, UP THEATER, REPRESENTED BY ITS BUSINESS MANAGER VONN PERDON GOLFO, AND ABC TV-5, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ROBERTO BARRIERO AND DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM ACQUISITION VICTORINO VIANZON
G.R. No. 187571 (Filipino Academy of Movie Arts and Sciences, Inc., represented by Jummy A. Tiu v. Art M. Padua, Angel Calso, UP Theater, represented by its Business Manager Vonn Perdon Golfo, and ABC TV-5, represented by its Managing Director Roberto Barriero and Director of Program Acquisition Victorino Vianzon). - Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari filed by Filipino Academy of Movie Arts and Sciences, Inc. (FAMAS), represented by Jimmy A. Tiu (Tiu), seeking the reversal of the November 28, 2008 Decision[1] and April 21, 2009 Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 88884.
FAMAS is a non-stock, non-profit association duly organized and existing under the laws. On May 26, 2003, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued an order revoking its Certificate of Registration for failure to submit the required General Information Sheet and Financial Statement pursuant to Section 141 of the Corporation Code.
On June 22, 2005, the election of officers of FAMAS was held where Tiu was elected president.
On July 5, 2005, FAMAS, represented by Tiu, filed a petition to lift order of revocation with the SEC. This petition was, however, opposed by respondent Art Padua (Padua) alleging, among others, "that he was the duly elected president of FAMAS authorized by its Board Members to act for, and on behalf of, the corporation in the filing of the petition for the lifting of the SEC's order of revocation; and that the petition was filed without the knowledge, consent and authority of the officers, directors and members of FAMAS."[3]
Thereafter, Padua filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Manila (RTC-Br. 24) praying for the annulment of the June 22, 2005 election. RTC-Br. 24 was a special court designated to hear and decide intra-corporate controversies, which, in an order, ruled that the case was not an intra-corporate dispute and ordered the re-raffle of the complaint to a regular court. The complaint was then re-raffled to the RTC.
Meanwhile, the SEC held in abeyance the resolution of the petition to lift order of revocation pending the determination by the RTC as to the legitimate officers of FAMAS.
Notwithstanding, Padua and Angel Calso (Calso) led a group to plan and hold a FAMAS awards night on July 15, 2006 at the UP Theater with television coverage by ABC TV-5. Thus, on July 13, 2006, FAMAS, represented by Tiu, filed a petition for injunction against Padua, Calso, UP Theater, and ABC TV-5 before the RTC, which was raffled to Branch 46. The petition for injunction averred, among others, that by holding the awards, the name and reputation of the award-giving body would be tainted and/or damaged; that the holding of the awards night would be illegal because of the standing order of revocation of its registration; and that the awards night could prejudice its pending petition to lift order and subject it to legal penalties and liabilities.
In its Order dated September 15, 2006, the RTC-Br. 46 dismissed the petition for injunction for failure of Tiu to exhaust all administrative remedies.
On appeal, the CA denied the petition for lack of merit and for the failure of Tiu to establish his clear and unmistakable right to be protected by the injunction.[4]
Tiu moved for reconsideration but was denied in the CA Resolution[5] of April 21, 2009.
Hence, this petition.
The petition is DISMISSED for being moot and academic.
An issue becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy so that a declaration on the issue would be of no practical use or value.[6] Consequently, when the act sought to be enjoined had been accomplished, the basis for the issuance of the writ of injunction is no longer existent and, thus, moot and academic.
In the present case, the object of the petition, which was the holding of the July 15, 2006 FAMAS awards night, had long been consummated. Thus, it is no longer possible to restrain the exercise of an act through the issuance of a prohibitory injunction.cralaw
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 20-32. Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and concurred in by Associate Justices Mario L. Guari�a III and Apolinario D. Bruselas: Jr.[2] Rollo, pp. 36-38.
[3] CA in CA-G.R. SO No. 95405, promulgated on October 31, 2006, penned by Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and concurred in by Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Ramon M. Bato, Jr.
[4] Rollo, pp. 20-32.
[5] Rollo, 36-38.
[6] King v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 158195, December 16, 2005, 478 SCRA 275.