G.R. NO.

75439, October 13, 1986

ROSALINA BUAN, RODOLFO TOLENTINO, TOMAS

MERCADO, CECILIA MORALES, LIZA OCAMPO,
Quiapo Vendors, for themselves and all others
similarly situated as themselves, Petitioners
vs
OIC GEMILIANO C. LOPEZ, JR., OFFICE OF THE
MAYOR OF MANILA, Respondent
FACTS:
 On August 5, 1986 petitioners instituted a special civil action for prohibition
against respondent who was the acting Mayor of the City of Manila, and
that he may be perpetually prohibited from arbitrarily, whimsically, and
capriciously revoking or cancelling their licenses or permits and threatening
the physical demolition of their respective business stalls.
 They also sought a TRO in view of the Acting Mayor’s actual threats of
physical demolition of their stalls on that same day.
 The Court granted the TRO.
 The special civil action, on the one hand, must be abated on the ground of
lis pendens or auter action pendant.
 Earlier, on July 7, 1986, there was a special civil action for prohibition with
preliminary injunction filed before Manila RTC against the Acting Mayor
which was filed by Samahang Kapatiran Sa Hanapbuhay Ng Bagong
Lipunan, Inc.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not the action can continue?
HELD:

 NO. The special civil action, on the one hand, must be abated on the
ground of lis pendens or auter action pendant.
 The acts of petitioners constitute forum-shopping.
 Under Sec. 17 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines issued by the Supreme
Court, in connection with Sc. 9 of B.P. Blg. 129, no such petition may be filed
in the Intermediate Appellate Court if another similar petition has been filed
is still pending on the Supreme Court and vice versa. A violation of the rule
shall constitute contempt of court and shall be a cause of the summary
dismissal of both petitions, without prejudice to the taking of appropriate
action against the counsel or party concerned.
 The rule applies with equal force where the party having filed an action in
the Supreme Court shops for the same remedy of prohibition and a
restraining order or injunction in the RTC or vice versa.
HELD:

 Furthermore, the petitioner’s permits and licences have all expired, hence,
there can be no occasion of the inhibition of any revocation or
cancellation thereof. And the physical demolition of their respective
business stalls has already been consummated.
 Petition is denied for lack of merit and RTC is commanded to dismiss the
Civil case and to conduct no further proceedings in connection therewith.