[G.R.No.144207. April 17, 2001]

PANSAR vs. COMELEC et al

EN BANC

Gentleman:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated APR 17 2001

G.R No. 144207 (Dimnatang Pansar vs. Commission on Election and Sangcad Bao.)

This pertains to the petitions for certiorari and prohibition which seeks to annul the Resolution promulgated on January 17, 2000 by the Commission On Elections (COMELEC) (First Division) in SPC Case No. 98-319, declaring a failure of election in Precinct Nos.1A, 1A1, 15A and 15A1 in the July 18, 1998 special election with respect to the elected municipal officials in the Municipality of Butig, Lanao del Sur, and accordingly annulling the July 21, 1998 proclamation of Dimnatang Pansar, now petitioner, as Mayor of Butig. The subsequent Resolution promulgated on August 08, 2000 by the COMELEC en banc, denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, is also being assailed in this petition.

Upon verification of the records, this Court found that this is already the second petition filed by petitioner Pansar involving the same parties, the same challenged acts of the COMELEC and the same issues.

On August 14, 2000, petitioner Pansar, through counsel, filed with this Court the first petition for certiorari and prohibition, docketed as G.R. No.144132. That petition was immediately dismissed by the Court en banc in its Resolution dated August 15, 2000, on the ground that petitioner failed (a) to submit proof of services of the copies of the petition on the adverse parties, and (b) to state the material dates he received the notice of the Resolutions subject of the petition, as well as the date he filed the motion for reconsideration, all of which are basic and mandatory requirements of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, in petition for certiorari and prohibition.

Instead of filing a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s Resolution dismissing the petition, petitioner Pansar filed with this Court, on August 18, 2000, a new petition incorporating the lacking requirements. Expectedly, this second and present petition was docketed s G.R. No. 144207.

Unaware of the real scenario, this Court, On September 05, 2000, acting on the petitioner’s urgent prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or status quo ante order, issued an en banc Resolution in G.R. No. 144207 directing the parties “to maintain the staus quo prevailing at the time filing of the petition.”¹. Rollo of G.R. No. 144207, p. 570.

In the meantime, the August 15, 2000 Resolution dismissing the petition in G.R. No. 144132 became final and executory on September 12, 2000 per Entry of Judgment in said case.². Rollo of G.R. No. 144132, p.240. Accordingly, a Letter of transmittal dated November 07, 2000 was sent by the Clerk of Court of this Court to the Clerk of the COMELEC, Manila, transmitting the copies of the final executory Resolution dismissing the petition and the Entry of Judgment.

On September 15, 2000, private respondent Sangcad Bao filed his comment on the petition in G.R. No. 144207, informing this Court that the present petition has been “illegally re-filed” by petitioner Pansar “without leave of court,” and praying for its outright dismissal, invoking the finality of the Resolution in G.R. No.144132 dismissing the petition therein.

Petitioner Pansar and his Counsel, Atty. Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr. of the Brillantes Navarro Jumanil Arcilla Escolin and Martinez Law Offices, committed a highly improper and irregular conduct by filing the present second petition even as the first petition (G.R. No. 144132) was still pending in this Court. While petitioner has stated in his certification of non-forum shopping that he filed a similar petition with this Court, docketed as G.R. No.144132, and that the same was dismissed “on mere technicality,” he, however, further stated that “no such action or proceeding is pending in the Honorable Supreme Court.” ³ Rollo of G.R. No. 144207, p. 57. Worst, petitioner and his counsel did not manifest during the pendency of the present case about the finality and the entry of Judgment of the resolution dismissing the similar petition in G.R. No.144132. Clearly, they misled this Court, causing it to issue a status quo ante order.

We thus hold that petitioner Pansar and his counsel are guilty of violating Section 1, Rule 65 in relation to Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Specifically, paragraph 4, Section 3 Rule 46 of the same Rules, provides:

“The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a sworn certification that he has not theretofore commenced any other action involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different division thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there is such other action or proceeding, he must state the status of the same; and if he should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof ,or any other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunals or agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom.

xxx xxx xxx

“the failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.(n) (As amended by Resolution of the Supreme Court, dated July 21, 1998).”

Circular No. 28-91 issued by this Court further provides that a violation of the aforecited rules” shall constitute direct contempt of court.”

The reason behind the prescription of forum shopping or multiple filing of similar petitions is obvious. This practice works havoc in the orderly judicial procedure for it unnecessarily burdens our courts with heavy case loads, unduly taxes the manpower and financial resources of the judiciary and trifles with mocks our judicial processes, thereby adversely affecting the efficient administration of justice.

WHEREFORE, the present petition is DISMISSED and the status quo ante ordered issued pursuant to Resolution dated September 05, 2000 IS LIFTED. Petitioner Dimnatang Pansar and counsel, Atty. Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr., are declared guilty of direct contempt of this court, and each of them is fined in the amount of P2,000. 00 payable within five (5) days from notice hereof, with a warning that a repetition of the same misconduct will be dealt with more severely. This Resolution is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court