GR L 21361; (February, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21361 February 26, 1965
PAULITA L. ESTEBAN, petitioner-appellee, vs. ANTONIO V. CAVA, ET AL., respondents-appellants.
FACTS
On June 21, 1960, Paulita L. Esteban filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Manila. She sought to enjoin Antonio V. Cava, the City Fiscal of Manila, and an assistant fiscal from taking action on a criminal complaint for falsification of a public document filed by Cava against her before the city fiscal’s office. Esteban alleged that Cava had filed a similar administrative complaint against her before the Bureau of Civil Service on May 5, 1959, which was still pending. She argued this administrative case constituted a prejudicial question that should be resolved first, and moved for the suspension of the preliminary investigation on the criminal charge. The assistant fiscal, Florentino M. Villanueva, disregarded her motion and set a date to continue the investigation. After her motion for reconsideration was denied, Esteban filed the petition for prohibition. The city fiscal moved to dismiss the petition, arguing his authority to conduct preliminary investigations is authorized by law and cannot be restrained by the court, and that no prejudicial question existed. The lower court denied the motion to dismiss and, after a hearing on the merits, granted the petition, ordering respondents to withhold action on the criminal complaint until the administrative case was finally disposed of. Respondents appealed. During the pendency of the appeal, appellants filed a manifestation stating that the administrative case had already been finally decided adversely to appellee Esteban.
ISSUE
Whether the appeal from the lower court’s order to suspend the criminal investigation pending the outcome of the administrative case is now moot and academic, given that the administrative case has been finally terminated.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot and academic. The petition for prohibition was predicated on the claim that the pending administrative case presented a prejudicial question requiring the suspension of the criminal case. Since the administrative case had already been finally terminated, the issue presented by the appeal was rendered moot. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. No costs were awarded.