G.R. No. 220514 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE , in [the] light of the foregoing, the instant case is hereby DISMISSED for being moot and academic. SO ORDERED . [5] Aggrieved, the petitioners elevated an appeal before the CA. The CA Ruling In a Decision dated April 30, 2015, the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. It held that the case does not fall into the exception of an action "capable of repetition, yet evading review." The appellate court noted that the petitioners did not run in the 2012 election whereas the respondents actually ran for re-election and eventually won another term. Thus, it opined that it is unlikely that the petitioners would be subjected again to the same action by the respondents. The CA concluded that the resolution of the present action based on the merits will serve no useful or practical purpose on account of the expiration of the respondents' term of office. It disposed the case in this wise: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Decision dated February 10, 2014 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Para[ñ]aque is hereby AFFIRMED . IT IS SO ORDERED . [6] The petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated September 15, 2015. The Issue WHETHER THIS PETITION PRESENTS A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY AFTER THE TERM OF OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENTS HAVE ALREADY EXPIRED. The Court's Ruling The existence of an actual case or controversy is a condition precedent for the court's exercise of its power of adjudication. An actual case or controversy exists when there is a conflict of legal rights or an assertion of opposite legal claims between the parties that is susceptible or ripe for judicial resolution. [7] On the other hand, a moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical value. As a rule, courts decline jurisdiction over such a case, or dismiss it on ground of mootness; [8] otherwise, the court would engage in rendering an advisory opinion on what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts. A case becomes moot and academic when the conflicting issue that may be resolved by the court ceases to exist as a result of supervening events. [9] While it is true that this Court may assume jurisdiction over a case that has been rendered moot and academic by supervening events, the following instances must be present: (1) Grave constitutional violations; (2) Exceptional character of the case; (3) Paramount public interest; (4) The case presents an opportunity to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; or (5) The case is capable of repetition yet evading review. [10] None of these circumstances are present in this case. The expiration of the respondents' term of office operates as a supervening event that mooted the present petition. The petitioners, however, insist that the case falls under the fifth exception, i.e. , the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. There are two factors to be con