A.M. No. RTJ-18-2538 - Philippine Investment Two , Inc. vs. Mendoza

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-18-2538)

Administrative Complaint and Referral to the Sangguniang Panlungsod

In July 1999, respondents Abner D. Dreu, Jose Biazon, Sr., Nelson Cabahug, Mario Freo, Salvador Madrideo, and Genaro Orcullo filed an administrative case against petitioner before the Office of the Ombudsman. The complaint alleged violations of Secs. 366 and 368 of the Local Government Code and Sec. 3(i) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as well as falsification of public document.

The administrative case stemmed from an emergency purchase made in 1998 by petitioner of chemicals used for spraying the canals in Brgy. Rizal due to an outbreak of dengue. On 2 August 1999, the Assistant Ombudsman referred the case to the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Makati City. On 31 August 1999, the Sangguniang Panlungsod approved City Resolution No. 99-175, which created the Ad Hoc Committee to investigate the complaint against petitioner. Oscar Ibay was appointed Chairman; Meynardo Gonzales as Vice-Chairman; and Ricardo Javier, Romeo Medina, and Rodolfo Sese as Members.

Committee Action, Preventive Suspension, and Alleged Bias

After petitioner filed an Answer on 17 September 1999 denying liability, the Committee sponsored City Resolution No. 99-221 on 4 November 1999, placing petitioner under preventive suspension. The Sangguniang Panlungsod approved the resolution on 23 November 1999.

On 17 December 1999, petitioner filed a Motion for Inhibition against the Chairman and all Members of the Committee, alleging bias on the ground that they had already reached a finding of guilt in City Resolution No. 99-221, before he had presented his evidence and before the investigation was completed. On 5 January 2000, the Committee denied the motion and set the next hearing for 18 January 2000.

Petitions Before the Court of Appeals and Subsequent Supreme Court Filing

On 17 January 2000, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for a TRO and writ of preliminary injunction, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 56735. He asked the Court of Appeals to restrain the Committee from hearing the administrative case and to annul the 5 January 2000 order denying his inhibition motion.

On 18 January 2000, petitioner requested the Committee to defer the hearing to allow the Court of Appeals time to study and act on his petition. The Committee treated the case as submitted for decision. On 19 January 2000, petitioner filed a very urgent petition for issuance of a TRO in his pending case before the Court of Appeals.

Meanwhile, on 21 January 2000, the Committee sponsored Resolution No. 2000-014, recommending that petitioner be removed from office based on its finding of guilt as charged. Petitioner filed on 26 January 2000 a Supplement to his very urgent petition in the Court of Appeals, asserting that the resolution would be discussed on second reading on 1 February 2000, and that its approval would constitute the final act.

Seeking relief, petitioner then came to the Supreme Court on 28 January 2000, asking for: (a) a TRO preventing the Committee from proceeding further with the administrative case; (b) a writ of preliminary injunction for the same purpose; and (c) a directive requiring the Court of Appeals to resolve his prayer for a TRO.

Respondents’ Defenses: Forum Shopping and Mootness

Private respondents contended that petitioner committed forum shopping by filing, before different tribunals, two petitions involving the same issues and seeking the same reliefs. They also argued that the Supreme Court petition had become moot and academic because, on 1 February 2000, the Sangguniang Panlungsod adopted City Resolution No. 2000-014 recommending petitioner’s removal. They stated that the recommendation was approved by Mayor Elenita S. Binay apparently on the same day. Respondents further emphasized that the Committee had already ceased to exist upon submission of its report to the Sangguniang Panlungsod and that petitioner had already appealed his removal before the Office of the President.

Petitioner replied that his filing was precipitated by the continued failure of the Court of Appeals to act on his prayer for TRO or injunction. He insisted that his principal concern was the denial of due process arising from alleged bias of the Committee members. He claimed that, because he had appealed to the Office of the President and believed the matter was within exclusive judicial domain, he did not raise the same issue earlier. Despite these explanations, the Court found that the petition had to be dismissed due to forum shopping and for being moot and academic.

The Supreme Court’s Treatment of Forum Shopping

The Court reiterated that a party is guilty of forum shopping when he repeatedly avails himself of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all founded on the same transaction and essential facts, all raising substantially the same issues, and involving either matters pending in or already resolved adversely by another court. The Court stressed that the decisive consideration was the vexation caused to courts and litigants when a party asks different fora to rule on the same or related causes and to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, creating the possibility of conflicting decisions.

The Court compared petitioner’s contentions across the two fora. In the petition before the Court of Appeals, petitioner alleged that due process required neutrality and that the Committee members had already indicated findings of guilt even before he presented evidence and before the investigation was complete. He argued that the Committee could not be both investigator and proof-gatherer against him, and that this violated due process. He also sought multiple injunctive and prohibitory remedies, including restraining the respondents from participating in the hearing, annulling the 5 January 2000 order, and making any TRO or preliminary injunction permanent.

In the Supreme Court petition, petitioner asserted that the Court of Appeals had not acted on his prayer for a TRO or injunction and sought a command directing the Court of Appeals to resolve that prayer. Yet, he concurrently sought the same core relief: restraining the Committee from proceeding further with the administrative case against him, supported by the same due process and alleged bias allegations.

The Court held that petitioner’s attempt to obtain injunctive relief in the Supreme Court after efforts before the Court of Appeals failed to yield immediate action amounted to forum shopping. The Court characterized forum shopping as prohibited malpractice that trifles with the courts and abuses judicial processes, adding to docket congestion. It further observed that petitioner’s deliberate effort to seek the same reliefs in two different fora reflected an attempt to find a more favorable forum that would grant immediate relief.

Sanctions and Dismissal

Citing Revised Circular No. 28-91 (effective 1 April 1994), the Court noted the sanctions for forum shopping, namely summary dismissal of multiple petitions and direct contempt of court. Applying the circular, it ordered the dismissal of both the instant petition and CA-G.R. SP No. 56735. The Court also warned petitioner and his counsel that insisting on the petition and pursuing it further could subject them to liability for contempt under Canon 12, Code of Professional Responsibility, which tasks counsel with assisting in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

Mootness and Academic Character of the Petition

Apart from

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-18-2538)

Petitioner Ramonito Tantoy, Sr. filed a Petition for Mandamus with a Very Urgent Prayer for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order, seeking to enjoin the continuance of an administrative case and to compel the Court of Appeals to resolve his plea for a temporary restraining order for the same purpose.
Respondents were the Court of Appeals and private respondents Oscar Ibay, Meynardo Gonzales, Ricardo Javier, Romeo Medina, and Rodolfo Sese in their capacity as Chairman and Members of the Ad Hoc Committee created by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Makati, together with Abner D. Dreu, Jose Biazon, Sr., Nelson Cabahug, Mario Freo, Salvador Madrideo, and Genaro Orcullo.
The petition directly challenged the continuation of an ongoing administrative process, while the procedural background showed that petitioner had also filed a prior petition in the Court of Appeals seeking similar interim reliefs.
The Court dismissed the petition on grounds of forum shopping and mootness.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Petitioner served as Punong Barangay of Brgy. Rizal, Makati City.
Private respondents were members involved in the administrative investigation, specifically through the Ad Hoc Committee created by city resolution.
In July 1999, private respondents filed an administrative complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against petitioner.
On 2 August 1999, the Assistant Ombudsman referred the case to the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Makati City.
On 31 August 1999, the Sangguniang Panlungsod approved City Resolution No. 99-175, creating the Ad Hoc Committee to investigate petitioner.
The Committee sponsored City Resolution No. 99-221 on 4 November 1999 placing petitioner under preventive suspension.
Petitioner filed in the Committee a Motion for Inhibition on 17 December 1999, which the Committee denied on 5 January 2000.
Petitioner then filed in the Court of Appeals on 17 January 2000 a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 56735.
After the Committee treated the case as submitted for decision, petitioner filed a Very Urgent Petition for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order on 19 January 2000 before the Court of Appeals.
Petitioner later came to the Supreme Court seeking interim reliefs and mandamus-like relief compelling action by the Court of Appeals.
The Court ordered dismissal of both the Supreme Court petition for mandamus and the earlier CA-G.R. SP No. 56735 due to forum shopping, and separately dismissed them as moot and academic.

Key Factual Allegations

The administrative case arose from an emergency purchase in 1998 by petitioner of chemicals used for spraying the canals in Brgy. Rizal due to an outbreak of dengue.
The complaint alleged violations of Secs. 366 and 368 of the Local Government Code, and Sec. 3, par. (i) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, plus falsification of public document.
The Committee found grounds to place petitioner under preventive suspension through City Resolution No. 99-221, approved on 23 November 1999.
Petitioner alleged that the Chairman and members of the Committee were biased because they allegedly had effectively “made a finding even before petitioner has presented his evidence and even before the investigation has been completed.”
Petitioner’s due process theory rested on the claimed lack of cold neutrality by the investigators and the alleged prejudgment reflected in the wording tied to City Resolution No. 99-221.

Administrative Proceedings Chronology

Respondents filed the administrative case with the Office of the Ombudsman in July 1999.
On 2 August 1999, the Assistant Ombudsman referred the case to the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Makati City.
On 31 August 1999, the Sangguniang Panlungsod approved City Resolution No. 99-175 creating the Ad Hoc Committee composed of Oscar Ibay as Chairman, Meynardo Gonzales as Vice-Chairman, and Ricardo Javier, Romeo Medina, and Rodolfo Sese as Members.
Petitioner filed an Answer on 17 September 1999 denying liability.
On 4 November 1999, the Committee sponsored City Resolution No. 99-221 for petitioner’s preventive suspension.
On 23 November 1999, the Sangguniang Panlungsod approved City Resolution No. 99-221.
On 17 December 1999, petitioner filed a Motion for Inhibition against the Committee members on the ground of bias.
On 5 January 2000, the Committee denied the inhibition motion and set the next hearing for 18 January 2000.
On 17 January 2000, petitioner filed in the Court of Appeals CA-G.R. SP No. 56735 for Certiorari and Prohibition with prayers for interim reliefs to restrain the Committee.
On 18 January 2000, petitioner requested that the hearing be deferred for the Court of Appeals’ attention, but the Committee treated the matter as submitted for decision.
On 19 January 2000, petitioner filed a Very Urgent Petition for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order in the pending C