93 Moot and Academic

Q: The Fastech Corporations filed Rehabilitation Petition and prayed for approval of their
Rehabilitation Plan. CA set aside the Resolution of Rehabilitation Court, which dismissed corporate
rehabilitation (Rehabilitation Petition). Landbank and Planters Bank, their creditors, argued that
the Rehabilitation Plan should not have been approved since it would not benefit the Fastech
Corporations' creditors. It maintains that it does not agree with the period of the repayment plan,
which could take almost 20 years, or with the waiver of interest and penalties incurred prior to the
filing of rehabilitation. The Supreme Court arrived at the conclusion after a careful scrutiny of the
case records. The decision is comprehensive enough that to rule on the issue raised by petitioner
will be futile and is a waste of this Court's time and resources. Moreover, petitioner did not advance
any other issue that could have been resolved by the Court. Therefore, the present case has been
rendered moot and academic.

Should the case at bar be rendered moot and academic?

Ans: Yes. A case is moot and academic if it "ceases to present a justiciable controversy because of
supervening events so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value." When a
case is moot and academic, this court generally declines jurisdiction over it. Courts will not render
judgment on a moot and academic case unless any of the following circumstances exists: "(1)
[g]rave constitutional violations; (2) [e]xceptional character of the case; (3) [p]aramount
public interest; (4) [t]he case presents an opportunity to guide the bench, the bar, and the
public; or (5) [t]he case is capable of repetition yet evading review." Land Bank of the
Philippines vs. Fastech Synergy Philippines, Inc. G.R. No. 206150 / August 09, 2017

94 Rule 42

Q: Tantrade filed a Complaint for Collection of a Sum of Money with Damages praying that the
defendant, Juliana Magat (deceased) be ordered to pay for unpaid purchases of construction
materials. Juliana, however, denied making any such purchases. Petitioners (heir of Juliana) filed
Petition for Review under Rule 42, they filed their Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to file
Petition for Review under the said rule. They asked for an additional 15 days citing financial
constraint due to the expenses from the hospitalization and death of their mother Juliana. CA
denied the First Motion for Extension, arguing that the Petitioners procrastinated by filing a day
before the end of the reglementary period and that the Court could not be expected to have acted
on such very limited time. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, citing the difficulties in
complying with the court procedure such as (1) the distance of places; (2) length of time to prepare
the main petition; and (3) lack of money. CA denied the Motion for Reconsideration.

WON the extensions sought by the Petitioners should be granted.

Ans: Yes. Petitioners were simultaneously afflicted with the tragedy of death and constrained by
their means. These were compelling reasons warranting a solicitous stance towards them. Justice is
better served by extending consideration to them and enabling an exhaustive resolution of the
parties' claims. This is especially so as petitioners' utmost good faith was demonstrated; they
having seen to it that, even as they were imploring the Court of Appeals' understanding, each of the
technical requirements of Rule 42 (Petition for Review From the Regional Trial Courts to the Court
of Appeals) was satisfied. Mario Magat, Sr. vs. Tantrade Corporation G.R. No. 205483 / August 23,
2017

95

Q: The assailed CA Resolution dismissed petitioners’ appeal under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure on account of several technical defects. First was an inconsistency between the
listing of petitioners’ names in their prior Motion for Extension of Time and subsequent Petition
for Review, in which the accompanying verification and certification of non-forum shopping
were laden with this same inconsistency and other defects. Second was the non-inclusion of the
original Complaint filed by the adverse party, now private respondent Inaki A. Larrazabal
Enterprises, before the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator of the Department of Agrarian
Reform. And last was petitioners’ counsel’s failure to indicate the place of issue of the official
receipt of his payment of annual membership dues to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines

WON the dismissal of petitioners' appeal was justified by the errors noted by the CA.

Ans: No. In this case, the Court of Appeals was harsh in denying petitioners the opportunity to
exhaustively ventilate and argue their case. Rather than dwelling on procedural minutiae, the
Court of Appeals should have been impelled by the greater interest of justice. Procedural rules
must be faithfully followed and dutifully enforced. Still, their application should not
amount to "plac[ing] the administration of justice in a straightjacket." An inordinate
fixation on technicalities cannot defeat the need for a full, just, and equitable litigation of
claims. Alfonso Singson Cortal vs. Inaki A. Larrazabal Enterprises G.R. No. 199107 / August 30,
2017