Buan v. Lopez, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners, claiming to be licensed vendors of religious articles, medicine, herbs, and plants around the Quiapo Church in Manila, initiated legal action to prevent the Officer-in-Charge of the Office of the Mayor of Manila from arbitrarily revoking their licenses and demolishing their business stalls. They alleged that their licenses were revoked without notice or valid cause, constituting a deprivation of property without due process. The vendors asserted they had been paying the required fees and were operating under valid permits. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners filed a special civil action for prohibition in the Supreme Court on August 5, 1986, seeking to halt the Mayor's actions and requesting a temporary restraining order, which was granted. However, the Supreme Court noted that a similar action, Civil Case No. 8636563, had already been filed in the Regional Trial Court of Manila on July 7, 1986, by an association of vendors, including some of the petitioners in the Supreme Court case, raising the same issues and seeking similar relief. The Regional Trial Court had subsequently dismissed its case. The Supreme Court also observed subsequent filings by the petitioners in their case, including attempts to withdraw or disavow the action, which the Court found unconvincing. 3. The Petition: The petitioners sought a writ of prohibition to perpetually prevent the respondent Mayor from revoking their licenses and demolishing their stalls, arguing that such actions were arbitrary and lacked legal basis. They contended that their licenses were revoked for unknown reasons, violating their right to due process. The petition was filed under the premise of representing themselves and all others similarly situated. However, the Supreme Court ultimately denied the petition, citing lis pendens due to the prior identical case filed in the Regional Trial Court, the petitioners' failure to possess valid and subsisting licenses at the time of filing, and the mootness of the action due to the expiration of permits and the consummation of the demolition.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition should be dismissed on the ground of lis pendens or autre action pendant, and whether the petitioners engaged in forum shopping. Whether the petitioners had a valid and subsisting license or permit at the time of filing the petition. Whether the action for prohibition had become moot and academic.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Regional Trial Court is commanded to dismiss Civil Case No. 86-36563 and to conduct no further proceedings therein, except in accordance with and in implementation of this Decision. Costs are against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of lis pendens and forum shopping: The Court found that there was an identity of parties (or at least parties representing the same interests), rights asserted, relief prayed for, and the factual basis between the action filed in the Supreme Court and the one filed in the Regional Trial Court. This identity satisfied the requisites of autre action pendant (pendency of another action). The Court explicitly condemned the act of filing the same suit in different courts as "forum shopping," an act of malpractice proscribed and condemned as trifling with the courts and abusing their processes. The Court cited Section 17 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines, which mandates the summary dismissal of both petitions in such cases. On the validity of licenses and permits: The Court noted that not one of the petitioners, nor the "others similarly situated," had a valid and subsisting license or permit as of August 5, 1986, the date of filing their petition. The submitted receipts confirmed that all licenses and permits had expired prior to this date. Therefore, the petitioners had no basis to claim a right to ply their trade in the Quiapo area or elsewhere, rendering their argument that the non-renewal was a cancellation without cause as puerile. On the mootness of the action: The Court held that the action for prohibition had become moot and academic because the acts sought to be inhibited had already occurred. The petitioners' permits and licenses had all expired, making any discussion of their revocation or cancellation irrelevant. Furthermore, the "physical demolition of their respective business stalls" had already been consummated, rendering the prohibition sought against it without effect.
Main Doctrine
The filing of identical actions in different courts constitutes forum shopping, which is a ground for dismissal of both actions and may subject the parties and counsel to disciplinary action. Furthermore, an action for prohibition becomes moot and academic when the acts sought to be prohibited have already occurred.