VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION); ROMAN MABANTA, JR.;

Ruling

Accordingly, the aggrieved party could appeal therefrom by way of a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court pursuant to Sec. 7 of P.D. No. 1606 as further amended by R.A. No. 7975. It is, of course, settled that the special civil action for certiorari may be resorted to even if the remedy of appeal is available provided that it is shown that the appeal is inadequate, slow, insufficient, and will not promptly relieve a party from the injurious effects of the order complained of, or where the appeal is ineffective. [21] In this case, the petitioner has not convinced us at all that the regular appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as provided for in Section 7 of P.D. No. 1606 as further amended by R.A. No. 7975, was inadequate, slow, insufficient, or ineffective. Other than his bare, stereotyped allegation in the petition that he had no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, which is even untrue since the remedy of appeal was in fact allowed, the petitioner has nothing to offer to justify his resort to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Even if it be conceded, arguendo , that the petitioner could properly avail of Rule 65, the instant petition would still fail. The assailed resolutions are not tainted with grave abuse of discretion. We agree with the Sandiganbayan that the petition for injunction had become moot and academic. The remedy of injunction, specifically to prevent his ouster from his positions, could no longer be entertained because the act sought to be prevented had long been consummated. Without doubt, the said petition was precipitated by the letter [22] dated 27 June 1988, which dismissed the petitioner from his positions effective 30 June 1988. The petition in G.R. No. 83831, which was filed before this Court on 30 June 1988, sought the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order to enjoin the PCGG and the newly elected ETPI board members and officers from ousting the petitioner from his positions at ETPI. No temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction was issued by this Court. Hence, he was effectively removed from his positions. Corollarily, his subsequent motion for a preliminary mandatory injunction praying that the respondents be ordered to open his office and allow him access to and use thereof had no leg to stand on. Neither is there merit in petitioners argument that since this Court referred his original petition (G.R. No. 83831) to the Sandiganbayan for appropriate proceedings the Sandiganbayan should not have dismissed it. Such referral was made for the Sandiganbayan to exercise its original jurisdiction and to determine the merits of the issues raised by the parties, which were basically factual. Thus, the said tribunal allowed the parties to argue their positions, as indicated in the voluminous pleadings and motions filed by them. Hearings on certain motions, including those filed by the petitioner, were cond