Case Digest (G.R. No. L-33583)
Facts:
Fe F. Bautista v. Cipriano B. Primicias, Jr., et al., G.R. No. L-33583, February 12, 1972, Supreme Court En Banc, Teehankee, J., writing. Petitioner Fe F. Bautista, then Municipal Mayor of Pozorrubio, Pangasinan, filed an original action for prohibition with preliminary injunction on June 3, 1971, challenging the legality of Resolution No. 176 (May 20, 1971) and Resolution No. 185 (May 27, 1971) of the Provincial Board of Pangasinan. Those resolutions sought to preventively suspend petitioner from office at the instance of Anita T. Estrada (complainant in the administrative case), president of the Pozorrubio Market Vendors Association, Inc., who had filed administrative charges for alleged oppression or misconduct.The administrative complaint dated December 29, 1970 was closely related to a civil action filed December 1, 1970 in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan by the same market vendors association contesting municipal ordinances that petitioner sought to enforce against the vendors in connection with their vacating leased market stalls for construction of a new market building. The CFI dismissed that civil complaint by decision dated April 5, 1971; the plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals.
After petitioner sought injunctive relief against the provincial board resolutions, the Court issued a temporary restraining order on June 4, 1971. Respondents (the provincial governor, vice‑governor, provincial board members, Estrada and the municipal vice‑mayor as named co‑respondents) answered and moved to lift the TRO. The Court then issued a July 2, 1971 resolution issuing an amended TRO restraining respondents from continuing the provincial board hearing of Administrative Case No. 11, ordered respondents to show cause by July 12, 1971 why a preliminary injunction should not issue, and set a merits/hearing date of July 14, 1971.
At the July 14 hearing, respondents later filed a manifestation (July 19, 1971) informing the Court that on July 17, 1971 the Provincial Board passed a resolution suspending indefinitely the investigation of Administrative Case No. 11 and declaring Resolutions Nos. 176 and 185 functus officio and without further force and effect; a certified copy was submitted. The Board action was adopted upon the written recommendation of then Vice‑Governor Vicente Millora, who invoked the Decentralization Act provision barring commencement or continuation of administrative investigations within 90 days immediately prior to an election (Section 5, R.A. No. 5185). Petitioner’s counsel filed a counter‑manifestation (Aug. 7, 1971) expressing concern the indefinite suspension might be lifted after the November 1971 elections.
No preventive suspension of petitioner was effected during the incumbents’ terms, and with the expiration of petitioner’s and the provincial officials’ terms ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction still justiciable or has the controversy become moot and academic?
- If the case were not moot, could the Court adjudicate the legality and validity of the provincial board’s Resolutions Nos. 176 and 185 that sought the preventive su...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)