Montes v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Carlito L. Montes, Chief of the Legal Division of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), was accused of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service by Imelda D. Rodriguez and Elizabeth Fontanilla. The complainants alleged that Montes produced and played a tape recording of a private conversation he had with the DOST Secretary without the latter's knowledge or consent. Montes also admitted to recording a private conversation with Fontanilla without her consent. Furthermore, Montes had mentioned and re-played tape recordings of conversations with other individuals, including the DOST Secretary and Fontanilla, in correspondence and to a third party. The Ombudsman found Montes guilty of violating R.A. 4200, the Anti-Wiretapping Law, and deemed this to be gross misconduct. Procedural History: The Office of the Ombudsman, in a Decision dated January 17, 2000, found Montes guilty of grave misconduct and ordered his suspension for one year without pay. This decision was affirmed by the Ombudsman in an Order dated March 2, 2000, denying Montes' motion for reconsideration. Montes then filed a petition for certiorari with a prayer for a temporary restraining order before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals initially dismissed this petition for being procedurally infirm but later reconsidered and required the Ombudsman to file a comment. However, the appellate court considered Montes' motion for reconsideration abandoned when he filed the instant petition. Meanwhile, on June 28, 2000, the DOST Secretary issued the suspension order. The Petition: Montes filed a Petition for Prohibition with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order before the Supreme Court, seeking to prohibit the DOST Secretary from implementing the suspension order. He argued that the implementation was premature given the pendency of his petition before the Court of Appeals and that there was no legal mandate for immediate execution of the Ombudsman's decision in administrative cases with a one-year suspension penalty. Montes also contended that the administrative complaint for violation of R.A. 4200 was cognizable by regular courts and that his conviction was based on substantial evidence, which he deemed insufficient for a criminal offense. The Supreme Court, however, found that Montes engaged in forum shopping by filing the instant petition while his motion for reconsideration was still pending before the Court of Appeals, and that the act sought to be restrained was already a fait accompli.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for prohibition should be granted to enjoin the implementation of the suspension order, considering the arguments of forum shopping and the availability of other remedies. Whether Montes engaged in forum shopping by seeking simultaneous remedies in different fora. Whether Montes failed to establish the requisites for a writ of prohibition, particularly demonstrating the absence of other adequate remedies and adhering to the doctrine of judicial hierarchy. Whether the implementation of the suspension order was premature, rendering the petition for prohibition moot and academic.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition for Prohibition. The Court found that Montes engaged in forum shopping by filing the instant petition while his motion for reconsideration was still pending before the Court of Appeals. Furthermore, the Court noted that the act sought to be enjoined, the implementation of the suspension order, had already become a fait accompli, rendering the petition academic. The Court also found that Montes failed to observe the doctrine of judicial hierarchy by directly filing the petition with the Supreme Court when the CA had concurrent jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the petition for prohibition: The Court held that since the suspension order had already been implemented on July 17, 2000, as manifested by Montes himself, the petition for prohibition, which is a preventive remedy, had become moot and academic. Prohibition, as a rule, does not lie to restrain an act that is already fait accompli. Therefore, there was nothing left to restrain. Furthermore, Montes committed forum shopping and failed to pursue available remedies. On the issue of forum shopping: The Court held that Montes committed forum shopping by filing the instant petition for prohibition with the Supreme Court while his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his petition for certiorari was still pending before the Court of Appeals. The relief sought in both petitions was identical: to restrain the DOST Secretary from implementing the suspension order. This act of seeking simultaneous remedies in different fora is censurable and constitutes a ground for dismissal. The Court emphasized that forum shopping is an act of malpractice that trifles with the courts and abuses their processes, leading to summary dismissal of the case with prejudice. On the issue of the requisites for a writ of prohibition: The Court found that Montes failed to adequately show that there was no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Court noted that Montes had the remedy of filing a petition for prohibition before the Court of Appeals as an incident of his pending certiorari petition and motion for reconsideration. By directly filing the petition with the Supreme Court, Montes disregarded the doctrine of judicial hierarchy, which mandates recourse to the lowest court of competent jurisdiction first. On the issue of the prematurity of the suspension order: The Court pointed out that the suspension order had already been implemented on July 17, 2000, as manifested by Montes himself. Since the act sought to be enjoined had already taken place, the petition for prohibition, which is a preventive remedy, had become moot and academic. Prohibition, as a rule, does not lie to restrain an act that is already fait accompli. Therefore, there was nothing left to restrain.
Main Doctrine
A petition for prohibition will not lie to restrain an act that is already fait accompli. Furthermore, the filing of simultaneous remedies in different fora constitutes forum shopping, which is a ground for dismissal.