DR. ELISEO L. RUIZ, PRESI­DENT OF CENTRAL LUZON STATE UNIVERSITY (CLSU), MUñOZ, NUEVA ECIJA, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FRANKLIN DRILON, HON. ISIDRO CARIÑO, I…

The Court NOTED the sixth motion for extension of time to submit
a comment to the petition for certiorari and prohibition, (G.R. No.
101666) filed by the Solicitor General on behalf of the public respondents
Executive Secretary and the Secretary of the Department of Education, Culture
and Sports (“DECS”), and Resolved to DISPENSE with the comment
required of the public respondents, considering that the pleadings and other
papers already filed by the other parties in this case are adequate to enable
the Court to act upon the present petition.

I I .

On 6 May 1991, President Corazon Aquino issued Administrative
Order (“AO”) No. 218 dismissing petitioner Eliseo Ruiz for cause from
his office as President of the Central Luzon State University
(“CLSU”).^[1]

In two (2) orders dated 2 July 1991 and 3 September 1991, the
Executive Secretary, acting by authority of the President, denied petitioner’s
first and second motions for reconsideration therefrom, the first for lack of
merit and the second for being pro forma. Consequently, AO No. 218 became final and
executory.^[2]

On 1 October 1991, petitioner filed a petition for prohibition
with prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO) with the Court of Appeals,
where it was docketed as CA-G.R. No. SP-21656.^[3]
Petitioner there sought to annul, as products of grave abuse of discretion,
President Aquino’s order dated 13 September 1991 appointing Dr. Fortunato
Battad as the new CLSU President, as well as DECS Undersecretary Marina
Pangan’s order dated 24 September 1991 directing petitioner to turn-over the
CLSU Presidency to Dr. Battad. The
Court of Appeals issued the TRO prayed for by petitioner.^[4]

Eight days later, on 9 October 1991, petitioner filed with the
Supreme Court the present petition (G.R. No. 101666) for certiorari and
prohibition with prayer for a TRO for the purpose of annulling, for alleged
grave abuse of discretion, the issuance of AO No. 218 as well as of the orders
of the Executive Secretary denying his motions for reconsideration therefrom.^[5]
The Court did not issue the TRO prayed for by petitioner.^[6]
This petition made no mention of the petition for prohibition with prayer for
TRO filed 8 days earlier with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. SP-21656).

On 9 January 1992, the Court’s Circular No.28-91 dated 3 September
1991 having gone into effect on 1 January 1992, petitioner filed a
manifestation and compliance dated 6 January 1992, where for the first time,
he disclosed to this Court the other judicial proceedings which he had
commenced in connection with the issuance of AO No. 218.^[7]

On 29 January 1992, after due proceedings, the Court of Appeals
promulgated its decision in CA-G.R. No. SP-26165, dismissing the petition for
lack of merit and finding the same to be a case of forum shopping.^[8]
Petitioner sought review of this decision by way of a petition for review under
Rule 45 with the Supreme Court, which petition was docketed as G.R. No. 103570
and assigned to the Second Division.^[9]
This case was consolidated with G.R. No. 101666, by this time pending with the
Court En Banc, by a resolution dated 2 April 1992.

Meanwhile, on 28 January
1992, the Court issued a resolution requiring petitioner to show cause why the
petition in G.R. No. 101666 should not be dismissed as an apparent case of
forum shopping, considering that the parties involved, issues raised and the
reliefs sought therein are substantially identical with those in CA-G.R. No.
SP-26165.^[10]

Petitioner submitted a manifestation and compliance dated 6
January 1992 obviously in anticipation of the 29 January 1992 Resolution of the
Court, as well as an undated compliance filed on 2 March 1992 in response to
the same resolution. He denies having
engaged in forum shopping and contends: (1) his cause of action in CA-G.R. No. SP-26156 consists of the
illegality of the actions taken by the Office of the President and by the DECS
in implementing AO No. 218, which may render moot the Court’s review of the
intrinsic merits of AO No. 218, an entirely different cause of action in
itself; and (2) he never attempted to hide the fact, either before this Court
or the Court of Appeals, that he had instituted both actions “for separate
reasons, apart though related from each other,” such candor being “an
elementary consideration in the determination of the issue whether he committed
forum shopping or not.”^[11]

Deliberating on the present consolidated Petitions, the Court
finds the explanations proffered by petitioner and his counsel as
justifications for the procedural maneuvers undertaken in this case to be
completely unsatisfactory and considers the Petitions to be clear cases of
deliberate forum shopping.

The Court views with considerable disfavor the legal maneuvers
undertaken by petitioner and his counsel of record, Atty. Crispulo S. Esguerra,
to defeat his removal from office. It
is evident that petitioner, in violation of Section 3, Rule 2 of the Rules of
Court, had split a single cause of action consisting of the alleged illegality
of his removal from office by the President through AO No. 218, by seeking
judicial review of (1) AO 218 with the Court and at the same time (2) having
the enforcement aspect of the President’s action and the filling up of the
resulting vacancy reviewed by the Court of Appeals. It also appears to the Court that petitioner carried out these
acts in order to obtain a TRO (albeit with a limited twenty-day lifetime) from the Court of Appeals, issued
as a matter of course, in order to stop the execution and implementation of AO
No. 218, and afterwards, to try to get a TRO with an indefinite lifetime from this
Court for the same purpose, in case his petition in the main action of CA-G.R.
No. SP-26165 would be dismissed on the merits by the Court of Appeals.

Moreover, during the period when the proceedings in G.R. No.
101666 and CA-G.R. No. SP-26165 were simultaneously pending action before two
(2) different fora, petitioner created for himself a situation where he could
hope to get (after the 20-day life of the Court of Appeals TRO) a judicial
order from either forum which could stop the execution of AO No. 218 with more
permanency (i.e., either a TRO with an indefinite lifetime from the Supreme
Court or the grant of his petition for prohibition by the Court of
Appeals). Thus the Court of Appeals,
aware of the institution of G.R. No. 101666,^[12]
committed no reversible error in considering the action before it as another,
independent case and as an instance of forum shopping.

Petitioner sought to maintain the two (2) segments of his single
cause of action again by instituting G.R. No.103570, in a bid to ensure that
the decision on the merits in CA-G.R. No. SP-26165 will not attain finality and
enforceability, even though the matters involved therein are essentially the
incidents of the case already pending review in G.R. No. 101666.

Forum shopping effected by a party litigant through the
deliberate splitting of causes of actions and appeals in the hope that even as
one case (in which a particular remedy is sought) is dismissed, another case
(offering a similar remedy) would still be open, is a deplorable practice because
it results in the unnecessary clogging of the already heavily burdened dockets
of the courts.^[13]

Section 17 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines issued by the
Court on 11 January 1983, relative to the implementation of section 9 of BP
129, granting the Intermediate Appellate Court (now the Court of Appeals) equal original
jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary writs of certiorari,
prohibition, etc., whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction,
provides that if such a petition is filed before the Court of Appeals and is
still pending therein, a similar petition cannot be filed in the Supreme
Court. A violation of this rule has
also been considered a clear case of forum shopping, an act of malpractice proscribed
as trifling with the courts and abusing their processes. The Rule itself provides that a violation thereof constitutes: (1) cause for the summary dismissal of both
petitions; and (2) contempt of court for which the party or counsel concerned
may be held accountable.^[14]

The pretended candor of petitioner and his counsel here does not
persuade. Petitioner never informed the
Court of the existence of CA-G.R. No. SP-26165 when he filed his petition in G.R. No. 101666, the first opportunity
available to him to be completely candid with the Court. It was the private respondents, in their
comment to the petition filed on 16 November 1991, who gave the Court first
notice of the other proceeding.^[15]
It is obvious that petitioner
filed his subsequent manifestation because he was no longer able to deny the
existence of the proceeding before the Court of Appeals. Petitioner’s attempt to trifle with the
highest court of the land in this manner renders him liable for forum shopping.^[16]

I I I .

In addition to the foregoing, the Court deliberated upon the merits
of the consolidated Petitions and considers that petitioner has failed to show
any grave abuse of discretion or any act without or in excess of jurisdiction
on the part of public respondents in rendering the assailed administrative
orders.

Petitioner is not entitled to be informed of the findings and
recommendations of any investigating committee created to inquire into charges
filed against him. He is entitled only
to an administrative decision that is based on substantial evidence made of
record and a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges made against him and
the evidence presented against him during the hearings of the investigating
committees.^[17]
There is no doubt that he has been accorded his rights.

AO No. 218 made certain findings of fact on the basis of which
petitioner was removed from office. Those findings included the facts that (a) petitioner terminated the
CLSU’s Executive Vice-President, offered new academic courses, undertook
unprogrammed projects resulting in wastage of university property, all without
the necessary approval of the Board of Regents; (b) he directed the purchase at
uncanvassed prices of chemicals unsuitable for the required school purposes
from a firm owned by him; (c) he executed, on behalf of CLSU, a crop harvest
sales agreement in favor of a company where he was holding a directorship; and
(d) he collected financial contributions from the faculty and students in
disregard of the provisions of R.A. No. 5546.^[18]
These acts constitute dishonesty and grave misconduct, and furnish legal basis
for dismissal from the public service.^[19]

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition in G.R. No. 101666, as well as the Petition for Review in G.R. No. 103570,
are hereby DISMISSED as clear cases of forum shopping and for lack of
merit. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals in C.A.-G.R. No. SP-26165 dated 29 January 1992 is hereby AFFIRMED in
toto.

Petitioner’s counsel, Atty. Crispulo S. Esguerra, is hereby
ADMONISHED and WARNED that repetition of the same or similar acts of forum
shopping will be more severely punished. A copy of this Resolution shall be attached to the personal record of
Atty. Crispulo S. Esguerra in the office of the Bar Confidant. Costs against petitioner.

Narvasa, C.J., Gutierrez Jr., Cruz, Paras, Padilla, Bidin,
Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

Nocon, J., on leave.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 31. Unless otherwise
qualified, the term “Rollo” shall refer to the Rollo of
G.R. No. 101666.

^[2] Id., pp. 34-36.

^[3]
Id., p. 267.

^[4]
Id., p. 398.

^[5]
Id., pp. 1 and 18.

^[6]
Id., p. 203.

^[7]
Id., pp. 267-269.

^[8]
Id., p. 405.

^[9]
Id., G.R. No. 103570, p. 12.

^[10]
Id., p. 316-A.

^[11]
Id., pp. 266, 367-371.

^[12]
Rollo, p. 401

^[13]
Tan v. Court of Appeals, 199 SCRA 212, 224-225 [1991]; see also New
Pangasinan Review, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 196 SCRA
55, 65-66 (1991).

^[14]
Resolution of July 31, 1986, G.R. No. 75197, E. Razon Inc., et. al. v.
Philippine Ports Authority, et. al.; reiterated in Buan v. Lopez, Jr.,
145 SCRA 34, 38-39 (1986), Alonto, Jr. v. Memoracion [En Banc], 185 SCRA
73, 78-79 (1990) and in Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. National
Electrification Administration, 193 SCRA 250, 255-256 (1991).

^[15]
Rollo, pp. 242-243.

^[16]
Collado v. Hernando, 161 SCRA 639, 645 (1988).

^[17]
Air Manila, Inc. v. Balatbat, 38 SCRA 489 (1971); Villa v.
Lazaro, 189 SCRA 34, 44 (1990).

^[18]
Rollo, pp. 30-31.

^[19]
Section 46(b), sub—paragraphs 1 and 4, Chapter 7, sub—title A, Title I, Book 5, Revised Administrative Code of 1987; Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 30
(series of 1989), paragraph A, sub—paragraphs 1 and 3.