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 Summary (G.R. No. 83614)

Procedural Background

The events that led to this case stem from Gonzales’s petition filed on February 1, 1988, in which he sought certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition to compel Alonto and the MSU Board to allow him to reclaim his position as Vice-President. On February 2, 1988, the lower court granted a restraining order directing the petitioners to permit Gonzales to assume his post during the pendency of the proceedings. The court also ordered Gonzales to post a cash bond.

Allegations and Legal Developments

Respondents filed a motion to dismiss, raising concerns about improper venue and the alleged abolition of the Vice-President's position. Gonzales contested this motion and subsequently accused the petitioners of contempt for defining the Vice-President’s role differently in a subsequent Special Order. The lower court then required the petitioners to justify their actions, which they complied with, and Gonzales claimed to have been suspended from his post despite the existing restraining order.

Key Court Orders

On March 14, 1988, the court issued an order making the February 2 restraining order permanent and nullifying a resolution from the MSU Board that had suspended Gonzales. The court imposed costs against the petitioners. Following this, on April 19, 1988, the court ruled Alonto and Jumaani to be in contempt and imposed monetary fines.

Appeals and Petitions

An appeal concerning the April 19 Order was filed, and despite the procedural history, petitioners also filed a petition for certiorari against the orders issued earlier by the trial court. A temporary restraining order was issued by the Supreme Court on June 21, 1988, halting the implementation of the lower court's orders.

Issues Related to Forum Shopping

Legal proceedings revealed that petitioners had attempted to address issues in both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, indicative of forum shopping, which is expressly prohibited as an act that undermines judicial integrity. This misstep was highlighted due to the acknowledgment that records had indeed proceeded to the Court of Appeals, contradicting assertions made by the petitioners regarding their appeal's status.

Findings of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court determined that petitioners had misrepresented facts regarding their prior appeal, labeling their actions as forum shopping. The Court underscored the importance of honesty in court submissions, requiring the petitioners to show cause regarding their conduct.

Conclusion of the Court

Ultimately, the petition was dismissed, w

...continue reading

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.