PAULITA L. ESTEBAN, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. ANTONIO V. CAVA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLANTS.

On June 21, 1960, Paulita L. Esteban filed a petition for prohibition with
preliminary injunction before the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking to
enjoin Antonio V. Cava, together with the city fiscal of Manila and one of his
assistants, from taking action on a complaint filed by Cava against her before
said city fiscal charging her with falsification of a public document committed
in connection with her duties as District Supervisor of Zambales.

It is alleged that on October 1,
1959 Cava filed the aforesaid complaint with the city fiscal of Manila which Was
assigned to his assistant Florontino M. Villanueva for
action; that the complaint was set for preliminary investigation whom Cava
profiled his evidence; that June 1, 1960, Paulita L.
Esteban asked for suspension of the investigation on the ground that Cava had
already filed on May 5, 1959, a similar complaint against her before the Bureau
of Civil Service which was still pending investigation and, hence, the same has
the nature of a prejudicial question that has to be decided before the criminal
case may be continued; that Esteban’s motion was disregarded and Fiscal
Villanueva set a date for the continuation of the preliminary investigation; and
that when her motion for reconsideration was denied, she instituted the instant
petition for prohibition.

On June 29, 1960, the city fiscal
filed a motion to dismiss alleging the following grounds; that the authority of
the city fiscal to conduct a preliminary investigation of a criminal charge
filed before him is authorized by Section 38-B of the Charter of the City of
Manila; that the power of the city fiscal to conduct such investigation cannot
be restrained or controlled by the court as ruled by the Supreme Court in a long
line of decision; that in order that there may be a prejudicial question it
should appear that the jurisdiction to try the same case is lodged before
another tribunal which situation does not here obtain; and that the motion of
Esteban is merely an attempt to delay the prosecution of the charge filed
against her.

After Esteban had filed her
opposition to the motion to dismiss and the parties had submitted their
memoranda, the court a quo
denied the motion and ordered respondents to file their answer within 10 days
from receipt of a copy of the order. Respondents filed their answer in due
course, and after hearing on the merits the court a quo rendered decision
granting the petition. The court ordered respondents to withhold action on the
complaint filed by Antonio V. Cava against Paulita L.
Esteban until after the administrative charge filed by the former against the
latter h have been finally disposed of. Respondents interposed present
appeal.

In the meantime, or on February
2, 1965, appellants filed herein a written manifestation stating that the
administrative case above adverted to has already been finally decided in a
manner adverse to the herein appellee, wherefore they
pray that the present appeal be decided at the earliest convenience of the
Court.

Inasmuch as the petition for
prohibition which was originally filed by herein appellee before the court a quo is mainly predicated upon
the fact that respondent city fiscal should be prevented from taking action on
the criminal charge filed by Antonio V. Cava against Paulita L. Esteban because of the pendency of the administrative case filed with the Bureau of
Civil Service ‘which she claims it involves a prejudicial question and, hence
the action on the criminal case should be suspended until the administrative
case shall have been finally disposed of, we are of the opinion that the instant
appeal is now moot and academic it appearing that said administrative case has
already been finally terminated. This appeal, therefore, should be
dismissed.

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby
dismissed. No costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon,
J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.