Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 27 2005.

G.R. No. 135321 (General Elevator & Escalator Corporation & Edgardo B. Limcaco, Jr. vs. The Honorable Romulo SG. Villanueva, Presiding Judge of the RTC, 5^th Judicial Region, Ligao, Albay, Branch 12 and Spouses Alfonso and Anacleta Bichara.)

Assailed in the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition is the Order dated July 22, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, Ligao, Albay in Civil Case No. 1965 denying petitioners' motion to dismiss the complaint for sum of money with damages filed against them by private respondents. Petitioners alleged that the trial court issued the Order with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Also assailed by petitioners is the Order dated August 16, 1998 denying their motion for reconsideration.

In their complaint in Civil Case No. 1965, spouses Alfonso and Anacleta Bichara, respondents, alleged that they contracted the General Elevator and Escalator Corporation and Edgardo B. Limcaco, Jr., petitioners, to install three (3) units of Fuji Slimline Escalators to the Bichara Tri-Cinema in Legaspi City at the price of P6,500,000.00. Without their (respondents') knowledge, petitioners added to the original contract a stipulation providing for an additional amount of P2,677,850.55 as currency adjustment fees. Respondents demanded the delivery of the escalators under the original contract price. However, petitioners refused delivery unless respondents pay the contract price with the currency adjustment fees, or the total amount of P2,677,850.55. This prompted respondents to cancel and terminate the contract and demand the return of all the payments they have made in the total amount of P5,150,000.00, plus consequential damages. But petitioners failed to heed respondents' demand.

Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss respondents' complaint on the ground that venue was improperly laid, contending that the action should have been filed with any of the Branches of the Regional Trial Court in Makati City pursuant to the provision of their agreement which states:

"In case of litigation, purchaser submits himself to the Courts of Makati and to pay 25% of the agreed amount claimed as attorney's fees and of liquidated damages plus cost and all other legal expenses incurred by General Elevator & Escalator Corporation."

On July 22, 1998, the trial court denied petitioners' motion to dismiss, thus the instant petition. Petitioners alleged therein that when the parties have agreed in writing that actions arising from their contract shall be filed with a particular court, such actions cannot be filed with any other court, even if it is in the place where one of the parties resides or where the property involved is located.

On the other hand, respondents commented that since the agreement does not state "exclusive venue," the parties did not intend to limit or restrict the venue of their litigation at Makati City only. Thus, the filing of their complaint with the RTC of Ligao, Albay is proper.

On November 9, 2000, petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss informing the Court that the parties have already amicably settled the case, attaching therewith a copy of the "Joint Motion to Dismiss Based on Compromise Agreement" submitted to the trial court and alleging that Civil Case No. 1965 had already become moot and academic by virtue of the said Agreement.

Indeed, the parties having entered into a compromise agreement, the controversy between them ended. We have held that where the issues have become moot and academic, there ceases to be any justiciable controversy, thus rendering the resolution of the same of no practical value.[1] Courts of justice constituted to pass upon substantial rights will not consider questions where no actual interests are involved. Thus, the well-settled rule that courts will not determine a moot question.[2]

WHEREFORE, the Joint Motion to Dismiss filed by petitioners is GRANTED. The instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for being moot and academic.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

[1] Garcia vs. Commission on Elections, 258 SCRA 754 (1996); Enrile vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal, 428 SCRA 472 (2004); Desaville, Jr. vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 128310, August 13, 2004.

[2] Cole vs. Court of Appeals, 348 SCRA 692 (2000).