Case Digest (G.R. No. 141427)
Facts:
Ramonito Tantoy, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141427, April 20, 2001, Supreme Court Second Division, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Ramonito Tantoy, Sr. was the Punong Barangay of Barangay Rizal, Makati City; members of the Sangguniang Barangay (private respondents) filed an administrative complaint against him before the Office of the Ombudsman in July 1999 for alleged violations of Sections 366 and 368 of The Local Government Code, Section 3(par)(i) of The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and falsification of public documents arising from an emergency purchase of chemicals for dengue control in 1998.On 2 August 1999 the Assistant Ombudsman referred the case to the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Makati. On 31 August 1999 the Sangguniang Panlungsod adopted City Resolution No. 99‑175 creating an Ad Hoc Committee to investigate the complaint; respondents City Councilors Oscar Ibay (Chairman), Meynardo Gonzales (Vice‑Chairman), Ricardo Javier, Romeo Medina and Rodolfo Sese were appointed members. Petitioner filed his Answer on 17 September 1999. On 4 November 1999 the Committee sponsored City Resolution No. 99‑221 placing petitioner under preventive suspension, which the Sangguniang Panlungsod approved on 23 November 1999.
Petitioner moved for inhibition of the Committee members on 17 December 1999; the Committee denied the motion on 5 January 2000 and set a hearing for 18 January 2000. On 17 January 2000 petitioner filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction (docketed CA‑G.R. SP No. 56735). After the Committee declared the case submitted, it sponsored Resolution No. 2000‑014 on 21 January 2000 recommending petitioner’s removal; petitioner filed a Supplement to his CA pleading on 26 January 2000.
On 28 January 2000 petitioner filed the present Petition for Mandamus with Very Urgent Prayer for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order in the Supreme Court, seeking to enjoin the Committee from further proceedings and to compel the Court of Appeals to act on his TRO application. Private respondents opposed, arguing petitioner was forum shopping because he had pursued remedies in different tribunals based on the same facts and issues, and that the petition was moot and academic af...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is petitioner guilty of forum shopping by pursuing substantially the same reliefs and issues in the Court of Appeals and in the Supreme Court?
- Has the petition become moot and academic such that injunctive relief would no longer ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)