SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 192302. June 4, 2014.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the ANTI-

MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL, petitioner, vs. RAFAEL A.
MANALO, GRACE M. OLIVA, and FREIDA Z. RIVERA-YAP ,
respondents.

RESOLUTION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J : p

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari 1 are the Decision 2

dated May 21, 2009 and the Resolution 3 dated May 17, 2010 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 102724 which nullified and set aside the Joint
Order 4 dated August 8, 2007 and the Order 5 dated January 10, 2008 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 24 (Manila RTC) in Civil Case
Nos. 03-107325 and 03-107308, denying the separate Motions for Leave to
Intervene and Admit Attached Answer-in-Intervention filed by respondents
Rafael A. Manalo, Grace M. Oliva, and Freida Z. Rivera-Yap (respondents).
The Facts
On July 18, 2003, petitioner Republic of the Philippines (Republic),
represented in this case by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), filed
a complaint for civil forfeiture, entitled "Republic v. R.A.B. Realty, Inc., et
al.," 6 docketed as Civil Case No. 03-107308, before the Manila RTC.
Subsequently, or on July 21, 2003, it filed a second complaint for civil
forfeiture, entitled "Republic v. Ariola, Jr., et al.," 7 docketed as Civil Case No.
03-107325 (collectively, civil forfeiture cases), also before the same RTC. 8 In
the said civil forfeiture cases, the Republic sought the forfeiture in its favor
of certain deposits and government securities maintained in several bank
accounts by the defendants therein, which were related to the unlawful
activity of fraudulently accepting investments from the public, 9 in violation
of the Securities Regulation Code 10 as well as the Anti-Money Laundering
Act of 2001. 11
On September 25 and 27, 2006, herein respondents filed separate
Motions for Leave to Intervene and Admit Attached Answer-in-Intervention 12
(separate motions for intervention), in the civil forfeiture cases, respectively,
alleging, inter alia, that they have a valid interest in the bank accounts
subject thereof. In this relation, they asserted that in a separate petition for
involuntary insolvency proceedings, i.e., Spec. Proc. Case No. 03-026 filed
before the RTC of Makati City, Branch 204 (insolvency case), they were
appointed as assignees of the properties of Spouses Saturnino and Rosario
Baladjay (Sps. Baladjay) (as well as their conduit companies) who were
impleaded as defendants in the aforementioned civil forfeiture cases. 13
 The Manila RTC Ruling
On August 8, 2007, the Manila RTC rendered a Joint Order 14 denying
respondents' separate motions for intervention, citing Section 35 of the Rule
of Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture 15 (Civil Forfeiture Rules) which
states:
Sec. 35. Notice to file claims. — Where the court has issued an
order of forfeiture of the monetary instrument or property in a civil
forfeiture petition for any money laundering offense defined under
Section 4 of Republic Act No. 9160, as amended, any person who
has not been impleaded nor intervened claiming an interest
therein may apply, by verified petition, for a declaration that
the same legitimately belongs to him and for segregation or
exclusion of the monetary instrument or property
corresponding thereto. The verified petition shall be filed with the
court which rendered the order of forfeiture within fifteen days from
the date of finality of the order of forfeiture, in default of which the said
order shall be executory and bar all other claims. (Emphasis supplied)
In view of the remedy stated in the foregoing provision, the Manila RTC
thus ratiocinated that respondents "need not unduly worry as they are
amply protected in the event the funds subject of the instant case are
ordered forfeited in favor of the [Republic]." 16 EaScHT

Dissatisfied, respondents moved for reconsideration, which was

likewise denied by the Manila RTC in an Order 17 dated January 10, 2008,
prompting them to elevate the case to the CA on certiorari. 18
The CA Ruling
In a Decision 19 dated May 21, 2009, the CA granted respondents'
petition, ruling that the Manila RTC gravely abused its discretion in denying
respondents' separate motions for intervention. It found that respondents
were able to establish their rights as assignees in the insolvency case filed
by Sps. Baladjay. As such, they have a valid interest in the bank accounts
subject of the civil forfeiture cases. 20 Moreover, a reading of Section 35 of
the Civil Forfeiture Rules as above-cited revealed that there is nothing
therein that prohibits an interested party from intervening in the case before
an order of forfeiture is issued. 21
Feeling aggrieved, the Republic moved for reconsideration which was,
however, denied by the CA in a Resolution 22 dated May 17, 2010, hence,
this petition.
The Issue Before the Court
The essential issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA
erred in holding that the Manila RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in
issuing the Joint Order dated August 8, 2007 and the Order dated January 10,
2008 which denied respondents' separate motions for intervention in the
civil forfeiture cases.
At this point, the Court duly notes that during the pendency of the
instant petition, the Manila RTC rendered a Decision on September 23, 2010
in Civil Case No. 03-107325, and, thereafter, a Decision dated February 11,
2011 and Amended Decision dated May 9, 2011 in Civil Case No. 03-107308,
all of which ordered the assets subject of the said cases forfeited in favor of
the government. 23 In view thereof, the Republic prayed that it be excused
from filing the required reply, 24 which the Court granted in a Resolution 25
dated June 3, 2013.
The Court's Ruling
The petition must be dismissed for having become moot and academic.
A case or issue is considered moot and academic when it ceases to
present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that an
adjudication of the case or a declaration on the issue would be of no
practical value or use. In such instance, there is no actual substantial relief
which a petitioner would be entitled to, and which would be negated by the
dismissal of the petition. Courts generally decline jurisdiction over such case
or dismiss it on the ground of mootness, 26 as a judgment in a case which
presents a moot question can no longer be enforced. 27
In this case, the Manila RTC's rendition of the Decision dated
September 23, 2010 in Civil Case No. 03-107325, as well as the Decision
dated February 11, 2011 and the Amended Decision dated May 9, 2011 in
Civil Case No. 03-107308, by virtue of which the assets subject of the said
cases were all forfeited in favor of the government, are supervening events
which have effectively rendered the essential issue in this case moot and
academic, that is, whether or not respondents should have been allowed by
the Manila RTC to intervene on the ground that they have a legal interest in
the forfeited assets. As the proceedings in the civil forfeiture cases from
which the issue of intervention is merely an incident have already been duly
concluded, no substantial relief can be granted to the Republic by resolving
the instant petition.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for being moot and
academic.
SO ORDERED. TcAECH

Carpio, Brion, Del Castillo and Perez, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 146-167.

2. Id. at 169-176. Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang, with

Associate Justices Mariflor Punzalan-Castillo and Ricardo R. Rosario,
concurring.

3. Id. at 177-179.

4. Id. at 224-226. Penned by Judge Antonio M. Eugenio, Jr.

5. Id. at 228.

6. Id. at 180-199. The defendants were R.A.B. Realty, Inc., Rosario A. Baladjay,
 Saturnino M. Baladjay, Chinatrust (Phils.) Commercial Bank Corporation, and
Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation.

7. Id. at 200-214. The defendants were Conrado G. Ariola, Jr., Joseph Valiant Ariola,
Patrocinia J. Ariola, Rosario A. Baladjay, Security Bank, and Bank of the
Philippine Islands.

8. Id. at 23-24.

9. Section 3 (i) (13) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001 provides:

Sec. 3. Definitions. — For purposes of this Act, the following terms are hereby
define as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

(i) "Unlawful activity" refers to any act or omission or series or combination

thereof involving or having relation to the following:

xxx xxx xxx

(13) Fraudulent practices and other violations under Republic Act

No. 8799, otherwise known as the Securities Regulation Code of
2000. (Emphasis supplied)

10. Republic Act No. 8799 (2000).

11. Republic Act No. 9160, entitled "AN ACT DEFINING THE CRIME OF MONEY
LAUNDERING, PROVIDING PENALTIES THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES," (2001).

12. Rollo, pp. 220-223 (in Civil Case No. 03-107308) and pp. 215-219 (in Civil Case
No. 03-107325) and, respectively. The separate motions for intervention filed
by respondents were identical.

13. Entitled "In the Matter of Petition for Involuntary Insolvency: Spouses Rosario A.
Baladjay, Saturnino Baladjay, et al."; id. at 230-231.

14. Rollo, pp. 224-226.

15. A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC entitled "RULE OF PROCEDURE IN CASES OF CIVIL

FORFEITURE, ASSET PRESERVATION, AND FREEZING OF MONETARY
INSTRUMENT, PROPERTY, OR PROCEEDS REPRESENTING, INVOLVING, OR
RELATING TO AN UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY OR MONEY LAUNDERING OFFENSE
UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9160, AS AMENDED," (2005).

16. Rollo, p. 225.

17. Id. at 228.

18. Id. at 229-250.

19. Id. at 169-176.

20. Id. at 174.

21. Id. at 175.

22. Id. at 177-179.

23. See Manifestation and Motion (In Lieu of Reply) dated May 14, 2013; id. at 682.

24. Id. at 683. In the Resolution dated January 21, 2013, the Court required the
Republic to file a reply to respondents' comment on the petition (id. at 667).

25. Id. at 686-687.

26. Carpio v. CA, G.R. No. 183102, February 27, 2013, 692 SCRA 162, 174.

27. Sales v. Commission on Elections, 559 Phil. 593, 597 (2007).