EN BANC
[G.R. No. 201772. September 10, 2013.]
MAYOR AHMAD R. OMAR, petitioner, vs. HON. BENSAUDI I. ARABANI, SR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 4, PARANG, SULU AND FERHANA J. MOHAMMAD, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated SEPTEMBER 10, 2013, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 201772 (Mayor Ahmad R. Omar v. Hon. Bensaudi I. Arabani, Sr., in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Parang, Sulu and Ferhana J. Mohammad). — After a judicious perusal of the records, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant petition on the ground that petitioner Ahmad R. Omar had deliberately engaged in forum shopping when he filed the present petition despite the institution of a similar action before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) on May 4, 2012. While it is true that the Court and the COMELEC have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus over decisions of the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) in election cases involving elective municipal officials, 1 this concurrence is not to be taken as an unrestrained freedom of choice as to which court the application for the writ will be directed, in deference to the principle of hierarchy of courts. That petitioner had subsequently moved to withdraw his earlier petition before the COMELEC based on a perceived lack of attention is inconsequential and cannot be given credence, not being a valid reason for its revocation. 2 Moreover, the COMELEC has already taken cognizance of his petition by requiring respondents to file their answer; thus, it has already exercised jurisdiction over the case. TaCIDS
At any rate, the instant petition has been rendered moot and academic 3 by the conduct of the 2013 national and local elections. As there is no more actual controversy between the parties or any useful purpose that can be achieved in passing upon the merits of the case, 4 the instant petition must be dismissed." (adv27)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDALClerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Carlos v. Hon. Angeles, 400 Phil. 405, 418 (2000).
2.See Municipality of Taguig v. Court of Appeals, 506 Phil. 567, 579-580 (2005) citing The Executive Secretary v. Gordon, 359 Phil. 266 (1998).
3.See Mendoza v. Familara, G.R. No. 191017, November 15, 2011, 660 SCRA 70, 81, citing Mendoza v. Villas, 644 SCRA 347, 357 (2011).
4.Quiño v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 197466, November 13, 2012, 685 SCRA 371, 381.