Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 16 2005.

G.R. No. 150638 (Madrigal Transport, Inc. vs. Trans-Republic Fruits S.A.)

Submitted to the Court is the Compliance^{^[1]} filed by Judge William Simon P. Peralta of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 50, which confirmed the dismissal of Civil Case No. 97-83749 per the trial court's order dated 8 March 2005. Civil Case No. 97-83749 is the subject of the Petition for Review^{^[2]} under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, filed before us by Madrigal Transport, Inc. (Madrigal Transport).

In its petition, Madrigal Transport seeks a review of the Court of Appeals' Decision^{^[3]} dated 31 May 2001 and Resolution dated 31 October 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 48803. The assailed Decision affirmed the orders of the trial court which denied petitioner's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint and to Defer Consideration of Petition to Compel Arbitration.

Before us, Madrigal Transport insists that the Complaint docketed as Civil Case No. 97-83749 entitled "Trans-Republic Fruits S.A. v. Madrigal Transport, Inc.," is fatally defective as it failed to allege plaintiff’s (herein private respondent) duly authorized representative or resident agent in the Philippines. It likewise ascribes error to the appellate court in not holding that private respondent's cause of action is barred by prescription.

On 4 February 2002, the Court issued a Resolution^{^[4]}requiring respondent Trans-Republic Fruits S.A. to file its comment. However, the copy of said Resolution intended for private respondent was returned unserved.

On 3 April 2002, the Court issued another Resolution^{^[5]}requiring petitioner to submit within ten (10) days from notice the correct and current address of private respondent.

After several extensions, petitioner to date has not been able to locate private respondent. And thus far, no comment has been filed by private respondent.

In compliance with our Resolution^{^[6]} requiring information on the status of Civil Case No. 97-83749, we are now informed that said case had been dismissed for failure to prosecute, per the trial court's Order dated 8 March 2005. This Order in fact has become final as evidenced by a Certificate of Finality issued by the trial court on 30 June 2005.

Perforce, we dispense with the need to adjudicate the instant case. The present petition which centers on Civil Case No. 97-83749 should be denied for having been rendered moot and academic by the Order of the trial court dated 8 March 2005. A case becomes moot and academic when there is no more actual controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits.^{^[7]} With the dismissal of Civil Case No. 97-83749, the issues raised in the instant petition ceased to present a justiciable controversy so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value.^{^[8]}

It is a rule of universal application that courts of justice constituted to pass upon substantial rights will not consider questions in which no actual interests are involved; they decline jurisdiction of moot cases. And where the issue has become moot and academic, there is no actual substantial relief to which petitioners would be entitled and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition.^{^[9]}

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby DENIES the petition for having become moot and academic. Costs against petitioner.

Nazario, J., on leave.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG

Clerk of Court

^{^[1]} Rollo, p. 354; Dated 5 August 2005.

^{^[2]} Id. at 10-33; Dated 18 December 2001.

^{^[3]} Id. at 37-A- 43; Penned by Associate Justice B.A. Adefuin- De la Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Josefina Guevarra-Salonga.

^{^[4]} Id. at 246.

^{^[5]} Id. at 254.

^{^[6]} Id. at 331; Dated 16 May 2005.

^{^[7]} Ocampo v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 158466, 15 June 2004, 432 SCRA 144, 150.

^{^[8]} Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Tuazon, Jr., G.R. No. 132795, 10 March 2004, 425 SCRA 129, 134.

^{^[9]} Gancho-On v. The Hon. Secretary of Labor and Employment & Lakas ng Nagkakaisang Manggagawa-PAFLU, 337 Phil. 654, 658 (1997).