G.R. No. 74694 , June 27, 1990
Nordic Asia Limited (now DnC Ltd.) and Bankers Trust Co. vs. Hon. Roque Agton, et al.

FACTS

Jibsen Trading Corporation contracted to supply wheat flour to Philippine Bakers, Inc. (PHILBAKE). The cargo was shipped aboard the M/V “FYLYPPA,” owned by Sextant Maritime S.A. and managed by Theilship, with P.V. Christensen Lines as the time charterer. Due to delays and the charterer’s receivership, Jibsen and its agent, Jibfair Shipping Agency Corporation, advanced substantial sums for port and fuel expenses. Consequently, Jibsen and Jibfair filed a complaint for sum of money against the foreign vessel interests in the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, securing a writ of attachment against the vessel. PHILBAKE intervened for its own damages.
Petitioners Nordic Asia Limited and Bankers Trust Company, as alleged unpaid mortgagees of the vessel, moved to intervene and to discharge the attachment by posting a counterbond. The trial court, presided by respondent Judge Roque Agton, granted intervention but denied the discharge of attachment. The court held that for discharge, a counterbond must equal the value of the attached property, not merely the amount of the claim, and ordered the parties to submit valuations to determine this amount. Before complying, petitioners filed the instant petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should rule on the petition seeking to compel the discharge of the writ of attachment via a counterbond.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as moot and academic. The Court found the petition premature, as the challenged May 2, 1986 Order did not impose a specific counterbond amount but merely required submissions to determine the vessel’s value. More critically, the factual landscape had fundamentally changed: petitioners had already caused the vessel to be sold at a public auction under the Ship Mortgage Decree (P.D. No. 1521) in a separate proceeding before the Pasay RTC, and the vessel had subsequently sailed out of Philippine waters in June 1986. This occurred even before the Supreme Court gave due course to the petition in March 1987.
The central legal logic applied is the doctrine of mootness. A court will not adjudicate a case where a ruling can no longer provide any practical relief or affect the rights of the parties. The very subject of the attachment—the M/V “FYLYPPA”—was no longer within the jurisdiction’s reach, having been sold and departed. Therefore, any determination on the propriety of discharging the now-ineffectual attachment would be an abstract exercise. The Court emphasized that it does not decide moot questions or issue advisory opinions. Since the vessel’s removal nullified the practical objective of the petition, the case was dismissed for being moot.