Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=40433:g-r-no-133145-august-29,-2000-ley-const-amp-dev-rsquo-t-corp-v-hyatt-industrial-manufacturing-corp-,-et-al&amp;catid=1396&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 03:57:04+00:00

Document:
LEY CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. HYATT INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, PRINCETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and YU HE CHING, Respondents.
An appeal and a petition for certiorari are mutually exclusive. A petition for certiorari is available only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Hence, a petition for certiorari is rendered moot by an appeal challenging not only the trial court resolution dismissing the complaint, but also the two interlocutory orders earlier assailed in the petition.
"On 1 April 1994, the petitioner filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against respondent Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corporation (Hyatt, for brevity), docketed as Civil Case No. 94-1429 of the respondent court. The Complaint was subsequently amended twice, to implead respondents Princeton Development Corporation (Princeton, for brevity) and Yu He Ching (Yu, for brevity) as defendants.
After some skirmishes over the admission of the second amended complaint, culminating in the decision of this Court in CA-G.R. SP No. 36206 dated 15 May 1995, the private respondents filed their answers to the said second amended complaint.
On 2 April 1996, the petitioner served notices to take the depositions of respondent Yu, Elena Sy and Pacita Tan Go. On 17 July 1996, the respondent court issued an Order allowing the petitioner to take the depositions of Elena Sy on 17 September 1996, respondent Yu on 26 September 1996, and Pacita Tan Go on 3 October 1996.
However, on 15 August 1996, respondent Hyatt filed a manifestation stating that Elena Sy had resigned from the company effective 1 July 1996. On 17 September 1996, Elena Sy failed to appear at her scheduled deposition-taking. The respondent court then issued its first questioned Order cancelling all depositions set for hearing, in order not to delay the early termination of the case, and setting the case for pre-trial on 14 November 1996, at 2:00 p.m.
On 24 September 1996, petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the said Order insofar as it cancelled the scheduled taking of depositions.
On 14 October 1996, the respondent court issued the second questioned order.
The petition was raffled to Justice Pacita Cañezares-Nye, who was then terminally ill. After her untimely death on February 28, 1997, the petition was re-raffled to the undersigned ponente on April 3, 1997.
"We agree with the private respondents that the petition in this case has already become moot and academic. Any decision of ours will not produce any practical legal effect. According to the petitioner, if we annul the questioned Orders, the dismissal of its Complaint by the trial [court] will have to be set aside in its pending appeal. That assumes that the division handling the appeal will agree with Our decision. On the other hand, it may not. Also other issues may be involved therein than the validity of the herein questioned orders.
In the-main, the Court will determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying due course to the Petition for Certiorari on the ground of mootness.
The Petition before us has no merit.
We disagree. First, it should be stressed that the said Petition sought to set aside only the two interlocutory RTC Orders, not the December 3, 1996 Resolution 13 dismissing the Complaint. Verily, the Petition could not have assailed the Resolution, which was issued after the filing of the former.
Under the circumstances, granting the Petition for Certiorari and setting aside the two Orders are manifestly pointless, considering that the Complaint itself had already been dismissed. Indeed, the reversal of the assailed Orders would have practical effect only if the dismissal were also set aside and the Complaint reinstated. In other words, the dismissal of the Complaint rendered the Petition for Certiorari devoid of any practical value.
Second, the Petition for Certiorari was superseded by the filing, before the Court of Appeals, of a subsequent appeal docketed as CA-GR CV No. 57119, questioning the Resolution and the two Orders. In this light, there was no more reason for the CA to resolve the Petition for Certiorari.
Third, petitioner’s submission that the Petition for Certiorari has a practical legal effect is in fact an admission that the two actions are one and the same. Thus, in arguing that the reversal of the two interlocutory Orders "would likely result in the setting aside of the dismissal of petitioner’s amended complaint," petitioner effectively contends that its Petition for Certiorari, like the appeal, seeks to set aside the Resolution and the two Orders.
Such argument unwittingly discloses a recourse to forum shopping, which has been held as "the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition." 18 Clearly, by its own submission, petitioner seeks to accomplish the same thing in its Petition for Certiorari and its appeal: both assail the two interlocutory Orders and both seek to set aside the RTC Resolution.
Hence, even assuming that the Petition for Certiorari has a practical legal effect because it would lead to the reversal of the Resolution dismissing the Complaint, it would still be denied on the ground of forum shopping.
"I.	The trial court committed reversible error in cancelling all scheduled depositions that it had previously ordered in violation [of petitioner’s] due process right to discovery.
As noted earlier, a petition for certiorari is available only when there is no appeal or any other adequate remedy. Considering that the relief prayed for in the Petition for Certiorari was already included in the subsequent appeal, we hold that the CA did not err in ruling that the Petition for Certiorari had become moot and academic.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Resolutions AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
Melo, Vitug, Purisima and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.
1.	Penned by Justice Hector L. Hofileña, with the concurrence of Justices Artemon D. Luna (Division chairman) and Artemio G. Tuquero (member).
2.	CA Resolution dated July 24, 1997, p. 4; rollo, p. 43.
4.	Written by Judge Roberto C. Diokno.
5.	See Petition for Review, p. 2, rollo, p. 10.
8.	CA Resolution dated July 24, 1997, pp. 1-3; rollo, pp. 40-42.
10.	The case was deemed submitted for resolution on January 14, 2000, upon receipt by this Court of Respondent Hyatt’s Memorandum, signed by Atty. Allan A. Leynes. Filed earlier were Respondent Princeton’s Memorandum signed by Atty. Bienvenido A. Tan Jr. and petitioner’s Memorandum signed by Attys. Ramon J. Quisumbing, Laurence B. Arroyo, and Ma. Carolina V. Fuentes of Quisumbing Torres.
11.	Petitioner’s Memorandum, p. 13; rollo, p. 310.
12.	Ibid., p. 14; rollo, p. 311.
14.	See Building Care v. NLRC, 268 SCRA 666, February 26, 1997; Bernardo v. CA, 275 SCRA 413, July 14, 1997.
15.	Province of Bulacan v. CA, 299 SCRA 442, November 27, 1998; Heirs of Placido Miranda v. CA, 255 SCRA 368, March 29, 1996.
16.	Ligon, v. CA, 294 SCRA 73, August 7, 1998, per Davide Jr., J. (Now CJ). See also Oriental Media v. CA, 250 SCRA 647, December 6, 1995; Malinao v. Reyes, 255 SCRA 616, March 29, 1996.
17.	Tan v. CA, 275 SCRA 568, July 17, 1997, per Francisco, J. See also Seven Brothers Shipping Corp. v. CA, 246 SCRA 33, July 13, 1995; Lansang v. CA, 184 SCRA 230, April 6, 1990.
18.	Chemphil Export & Import v. CA, 251 SCRA 257, December 12, 1995, per Kapunan, J. See also Solid Homes v. CA, 271 SCRA 157, April 11, 1997; First Philippine International Bank v. CA, 252 SCRA 259, January 24, 1996; Borromeo v. IAC, 255 SCRA 75, March 15, 1996.
19.	Petitioner’s Memorandum, p. 16; rollo, p. 313.
20.	Respondent Princeton’s Memorandum, pp. 25-26; rollo, pp. 259-260.

References: v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.