G.R. No. 190093, August 07, 2013


[ G.R. No. 190093, August 07, 2013 ]



Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated August 7, 2013which reads as follows: "G.R. No. 190093 (Ocean Pacifico Services, Inc. v. Angelito C. Bartolay). — The present Petition filed under Rule 45 assails the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated 17 April 2009. The CA found that no grave abuse of discretion may be attributed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in dismissing the appeal and denying the Motion to Reduce Bond filed by petitioner-employer. The CA affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the posting of a bond is an indispensable requirement for the perfection of an appeal, and that in any case, the reduced amount sought by petitioner was unreasonable and insufficient considering the monetary award appealed from.Instead of filing a Comment, respondent instead submitted a "Certification" informing the Court that through his attorney-in-fact and wife, Eloisa R. Bartolay, the case "had been satisfied (sic) and terminated on May 08, 2009 when she received the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY SIX THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED PESOS (P536,600) less attorney's fees and other legal expenses."[2]

On 1 February 2011, petitioner filed a Manifestation agreeing that the Certification was "an admission from private respondent that he considers his claims fully settled and satisfied and that the implementation of the reinstatement aspect is deemed waived and abandoned as manifested in his 15 May 2007 letter."[3]

In conformity with our rulings in Career Phils. Ship Management, Inc. v. Madjus[4] and Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Rodrigo Mercado,[5] the instant Petition has thus been rendered moot and academic by petitioner's satisfaction of judgment.

It is well-settled that courts will only resolve petitions involving justiciable controversies and must necessarily decline jurisdiction over moot cases. This Court will therefore abstain from expressing its opinion in a case where no legal relief is needed or called for.[6] None of the jurisprudentially recognized exceptions[7] is applicable to the present case.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED for having been rendered moot and academic.

SO ORDERED." LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J., on leave; BRION, J., designated acting member per S.O. No. 1497 dated July 31, 2013.

Very truly yours,

Division Clerk of Court

[1] CA Decision, rollo, pp. 220-224.

[2] Id. at 258-259.

[3] Id. at 272-276.

[4] G.R. No. 186158, 22 November 2010, 635 SCRA 619.

[5] G.R. No. 190381, 6 October 2010, 632 SCRA 474.

[6] Korea Exchange Bank v. Gonzales, 529 Phil. 690, 701 (2006).

[7] "Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if: first, there is a grave violation of the Constitution; second, the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved; third, when constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review." David v. Arroyo, 522 Phil. 705, 754 (2006).