Title
Alonto, Jr. vs. Memoracion
Case
G.R. No. 83614
Decision Date
May 7, 1990
A dispute over Eldigario Gonzales' reinstatement as MSU-TCTO Vice-President led to legal battles, forum-shopping allegations, and mootness due to his dismissal and term expiration.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 83614)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Procedural History
    • Petitioners: Ahmad E. Alonto, Jr., Amilussin Jumaani, and the Board of Regents of the Mindanao State University (MSU BOR).
    • Respondents:
      • The Hon. Salvador A. Memoracion, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tawi-Tawi, Branch 5 at Bongao.
      • Private respondent Eldigario D. Gonzales.
    • Relief Sought: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with a prayer for a restraining order and/or preliminary injunction to reverse, annul, and set aside three orders issued by the RTC judge.
  • Background and Chronology of Events
    • February 1, 1988:
      • Private respondent Gonzales filed a petition in Special Proceeding No. 6-5 before the RTC of Tawi-Tawi, seeking certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition.
      • The petition aimed to compel petitioners to allow him to re-assume his post as Vice-President of the Mindanao State University-Tawi-Tawi College of Technology and Oceanography (MSU-TCTO).
    • February 2, 1988:
      • The RTC issued an ex-parte restraining order directing petitioners to let Gonzales assume his vice-presidential position during the pendency of Sp. Proceeding No. 6-5.
      • Gonzales was required to post a cash bond of Ten Thousand Pesos and was directed to show cause within twenty days why the restraining order should not be made permanent.
    • Subsequent Motions and Orders:
    • Motion to Dismiss and Contempt Proceedings
      • February 24, 1988:
        • Petitioners (respondents in the Sp. Proceeding) filed a motion to dismiss on grounds of improper venue and the alleged abolition of the office of Vice-President under a presidential memorandum.
        • This motion was opposed by Gonzales.
      • March 3, 1988:
        • Gonzales filed a motion to cite Alonto, Jr. and Jumaani in contempt of court for their alleged defiance of the February 2, 1988 restraining order.
        • Specific acts cited included issuing a Special Order and an accompanying letter that designated alternative personnel in the management of the MSU-TCTO.
    • Orders Affecting Gonzales’ Position
      • March 12, 1988:
        • Gonzales indicated that a Board of Regents resolution (Resolution No. 2, series of 1988) had suspended him from office for ninety days by preventive suspension.
      • March 14, 1988:
        • The RTC issued a second order making the initial restraining order permanent.
        • The order cancelled the cash bond and declared the MSU BOR resolution suspending Gonzales to be null and void due to its issuance in bad faith during the pendency of the petition.
        • Motions for reconsideration of this order were timely filed by petitioners.
    • Further Developments and Final Orders
      • April 19, 1988:
        • The RTC found petitioners Alonto, Jr. and Jumaani in contempt of court for disobedience of its previous orders.
        • A fine of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) was imposed on each, and their motions for reconsideration were denied.
      • May 10, 1988:
        • An order was issued directing the Clerk of Court to transmit the records to the Court of Appeals, where an appeal had been filed by petitioners.
      • June 21, 1988:
        • A temporary restraining order was issued by the Supreme Court, temporarily halting the enforcement of the contested orders.
    • Allegations of Misconduct and Forum-Shopping
    • Petitioners, through their Consolidated Reply filed on December 29, 1988, claimed that the pending notice of appeal was “adcautelam” and should be superseded by the petition since no record on appeal or brief had been filed.
    • Documentary evidence, including the May 10, 1988 order and a December 8, 1988 resolution from the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 14962), contradicted petitioners’ assertions, revealing the actual filing and processing of the appeal.
    • The Court identified this as an act of forum-shopping and a deliberate falsehood intended to conceal the true state of the appeal.
    • The petition further highlighted that such act constitutes abuse of the court’s processes and an unethical legal maneuver.
  • Supervening Events
    • MSU BOR Resolution No. 139, series of 1988 (dated July 21, 1988):
      • Dismissed private respondent Gonzales from service for cause, citing findings of dishonesty and misconduct, and ordered criminal and/or civil actions against him.
    • Expiration of Term:
      • Gonzales’ term as Vice-President expired on March 16, 1989, based on Resolution No. 121, series of 1984.
    • Court of Appeals Decision:
      • On December 14, 1989, the Court of Appeals set aside portions of the April 19, 1988 order concerning the finding of contempt and the conversion of the temporary restraining order into a permanent one.
      • This decision was noted as providing adequate relief for the petitioners.

Issues:

  • Jurisdiction and Venue
    • Whether the RTC and the subsequent appeal properly fell within the court’s jurisdiction given the alleged abolition of the Vice-President’s office and claims of improper venue.
    • Whether the petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus should be entertained concurrently with the existing appeal proceedings.
  • Validity of the Trial Court Orders
    • The legitimacy of the February 2, 1988 restraining order granting Gonzales access to his vice-presidential position.
    • The propriety of the March 14, 1988 order making the restraining order permanent and declaring the MSU BOR resolution null and void.
    • The basis and justification for the April 19, 1988 finding of contempt and the imposition of fines on petitioners.
  • Allegations of Forum-Shopping and False Representations
    • Whether petitioners engaged in manifest forum-shopping by simultaneously pursuing multiple remedies before different courts.
    • Whether the explanations provided by petitioners in their Consolidated Reply were deceptive and in violation of ethical and procedural standards.
    • Whether such misconduct warrants punitive disciplinary action against petitioners and their counsel.
  • Mootness and Supervening Relief
    • Whether the supervening events (such as the MSU BOR resolution dismissing Gonzales and the expiration of his term) render the petition moot and academic.
    • Whether the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 14962 adequately resolves the issues raised by the petition.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.

About Privacy Terms