G.R. No. 195905 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the petition is DISMISSSED . The assailed issuances STAND . Costs against Petitioners. [10] Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the CA in its assailed 31 January 2011 resolution. Hence, this present petition raising the following: ISSUES I. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FOR BEING PROCEDURALLY DEFECTIVE; AND II. WHETHER PRIVATE RESPONDENTS WERE ENTITLED TO INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. THE COURT'S RULING The petition is meritorious. Before proceeding to the merits of the case, a resolution of certain procedural matters is in order. Case mooted due to supervening events At the onset, the present case has been rendered moot and academic. A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justifiable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that declaration thereon would be of no practical value. [11] In City Government of Baguio v. Atty. Masweng (contempt case) , [12] the Court set aside the provisional remedies Atty. Masweng issued in NCIP Case Nos. 29-CAR-09 and 31-CAR-09 after he was found guilty of indirect contempt, to wit: In this case, respondent was charged with indirect contempt for issuing the subject orders enjoining the implementation of demolition orders against illegal structures constructed on a portion of the Busol Watershed Reservation located at Aurora Hill, Baguio City. x x x x The said orders clearly contravene our ruling in G.R. No. 180206 that those owners of houses and structures covered by the demolition orders issued by petitioner are not entitled to the injunctive relief previously granted by respondent. x x x x As mentioned earlier, the Court while recognizing that the NCIP is empowered to issue temporary restraining orders and writs of preliminary injunction, nevertheless ruled that petitioners in the injunction case seeking to restrain the implementation of the subject demolition order are not entitled to such relief. Petitioner City Government of Baguio in issuing the demolition advices are simply enforcing the previous demolition orders against the same occupants or claimants or their agents and successors-in-interest, only to be thwarted anew by the injunctive orders and, writs issued by respondent. Despite the Court's pronouncements in G.R. No. 180206 that no such clear legal right exists in favor of those occupants or claimants to restrain the enforcement of the demolition orders issued by petitioner, and hence there remains no legal impediment to bar their implementation, respondent still issued the temporary restraining orders and writs of preliminary injunction. x x x x x x x WHEREFORE , the petition for contempt is GRANTED . The assailed Temporary Restraining Order dated July 27, 2009, Order dated July 31, 2009, and Writ of Preliminary Injunction in NCIP Case No. 31-CAR-09, and Temporary Restraining Order dated July 27, 2009, Order dated July 31, 2009 and Writ of Preliminary Injunction in NCIP Case No. 29-CAR-09 are hereby