CITY OF LAS PI?AS, AND SUSAN M. BOMBITA v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG CITY, BRANCH 268, AND JOLLIBEE FOODS CORPORATION

CTA Form o. 8 (For DCC) 111111111111llllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllll 24-00071 1-0014 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION CTA CASE NO. SCA-0028 CITY OF LAS PINAS and SUSAN M. BOMBITA City Treasurer of Las Pinas City, Petitioners, - versus - NOTICE OF RESOLUTION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG CITY, BRANCH 268, and JOLLIBEE FOODS CORPORATION, Respondents. To: SUSAN M. BOMBITA City T reasurer of City of Las Piiias Office of the City Treasurer Las Pinas City Hall Building Las Pinas City 1740 O FFICE OF THE LEGAL SERVICES C ity of Las Piiias Thru: At ty. Leoville T. Ecarma (Counsel.for rile Petitioners) 2nd Floor, City Hall Building Las Pinas City 1740 SALVADOR LLANILLO & MIJARES (Counselfor the Respondent Jollibee Foods Cmporation) Units 1706-1711 , 17th Floor, Tower One & Exchange Plaza Ayala Triangle, Ayala Avenue 1226 Makati City HON. MA RIA CHERYL B. LAQUI-CEGUERA Presiding Judge T hru : Atty. Nastasia Anne C. Padilla-Ongleo Branch Clerk of Court Regional Trial Court National Capital Judicial Region Branch 268 - Pasig City Pasig City Hall of Justice, Canmcho Avenue Brgy. San Nicolas, Pasig City GREETIN GS: You are hereby notified by these presents that on April 30, 2025, a Resolution was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. Quezon City, Philippines, May 5, 2025. .... Atty. Maria Jo~han-Te Executive C~urt II

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION CITY OF LAS PINAS, AND CTA SCA CASE NO. 0028 SUSAN M. BOMBITA, Members: Petitioners, DEL ROSARIO, P.J. , Chairperson, BACORRO-VILLENA, and -versus- CUI-DAVID, JJ. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG CITY, BRANCH 268, ANDJOLLIBEEFOODS Promulgated : CORPORATION, Respondents. X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~/~J.rJY~I RESOLUTION On February 12, 2025, petitioners filed a Motion to Withdraw Pet ition, praying for the withdrawal of the Petition for certiorari and proh ibition dated November 27, 2024. Petitioners manifest that publ ic respondent Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 268 (RTC-Pasig City, Branch 268) issued an Order dated February 10, 2025, granting the Motion to Withdraw Complaint and Supplemental Complaint filed by plaintiff (herein private respondent Jollibee Foods Corporation ) in Civil Case No. R-PSG -24-00217-CV. According to petitioners , the withdrawal of the Complaint and Supplemental Complaint and the subsequent termination of the case before the RTC-Pasig City, Branch 268, have rendered the legal issues raised and the rel iefs sought in this Petition moot and academic. A case becomes moot and academic when , due to supervening events, the conflicting issue which may be resolved by the court no longer exists.1 In such case, the court would generally decline jurisdiction or dismiss it on the ground of mootness, as resolving the issue may no longer provide any practical value.2 1 Republic vs. Moldex Reality, Inc., G.R. No. 171041 , February 10, 2016. 2 David vs. Macapagai-Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006.

RESOLUTION City of Las Piflas, and Susan M. Bombita vs. Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 268, and Jollibee Foods Corporation CTA SCA Case No. 0028 Resolving the issue of whether publ ic respondent RTC-Pasig City, Branch 268 acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack and/or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed Orders will no longer serve any legal or practical purpose in light of the termination of the case in the court a quo. While jurisprudence has settled that courts may, in exceptional circumstances, assume jurisdiction and decide cases wh ich have otherwise become moot and academic,3 none of the recognized exceptions are present in this case. Accordingly , the Petition may be deemed withdrawn on the ground of mootness. WHEREFORE, premises considered , petitioners' Motion to Withdraw Petition is GRANTED. Accord ingly, the Petition is hereby DEEMED WITHDRAWN , and the case is now considered CLOSED and TERMINATED. SO ORDERED. Presiding Justice ~ihltf LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice 3 In David vs. Macapagai-Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006, the Supreme Court enumerated the following instances: (1) grave violation of the Constitution ; (2) exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest involved; (3) when constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar and the public; and (4) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.