ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 154377 :
LAND CAR, INC.,, Petitioner, v. BACHELOR EXPRESS, INC. AND VALLACAR TRANSIT, INC., respondents.
D E C I S I O N
VITUG, J.:
On
Respondents, themselves grantees of certificates of public convenience, opposed petitioners application alleging that the route applied for was sufficiently being served by them, and that cutthroat competition would only result if petitioners application were to be favorably acted upon.
On
On
On
On
On
In the instant appeal, petitioner contends that the appellate court has decided a question in a way not in accord with applicable jurisprudence. There is merit in the petition.
Forum shopping refers to the act of availing oneself of several judicial remedies in different courts, either simultaneously or successively, substantially founded on the same transaction and identical material facts and circumstances, raising basically like issues either pending in, or already resolved by, some other court.1 The principle applies not only with respect to suits filed before courts but also in connection with a litigation commenced in court while an administrative proceeding is pending in order to defeat administrative processes in anticipation of an unfavorable administrative ruling and possibly a favorable court ruling.2 Forum shopping is said to exist where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case would amount to res judicata in the other;3 or where, in the two or more cases pending, there is identity of (a) parties, (b) rights or causes of action, and (c) reliefs sought.4cräläwvirtualibräry
In order to deter the evils of forum shopping, Circular 28-91,
dated
Undeniably, there is identity of cause of action and reliefs
sought between the petitioners letter-appeal filed with the Office of the
President and the petition for certiorari
filed with the Court of Appeals (C.A. G.R. SP No. 61159). The DOTC resolution and order, dated
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies empowers the Office of the President to review any determination or disposition of a department head. The doctrine allows, indeed requires, an administrative decision to first be appealed to the administrative superiors up to the highest level before it may be elevated to a court of justice for review. Thus, if a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be had by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on the matter that comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy should be priorly exhausted before the courts judicial power is invoked.6cräläwvirtualibräry
The appellate court correctly ruled that the action of a department head bears only the implied approval of the President, and the latter is not precluded from exercising the power to review the decision of the former pursuant to the Presidents power of control over all executive departments, bureaus and offices.7 The Office of the President validly acquired jurisdiction over the case upon the filing therewith of the appeal by herein petitioner, and said jurisdiction is not lost by the subsequent recourse by the petitioner of the certiorari proceedings before the Court of Appeals. Jurisdiction which has attached in the first instance continues until the final resolution of the case. Incongruently, the appellate court, while recognizing to be valid the exercise of jurisdiction by the Office of the President, ordered the dismissal of the appeal pending with the said office based on forum shopping.
The decision of the appellate court ordering the dismissal of the appeal taken to the Office of the President is clearly flawed. It is the latter, not the appellate court, which could dismiss the case pending before that office. It also behooves courts of justice, if only for reasons of comity and convenience, to shy away from a dispute until the system of administrative redress is completed so as to give the administrative office every opportunity to correct its error and to properly dispose of the case. In fact, the appellate courts order to dismiss the appeal pending with the Office of the President could well constitute an undue intrusion into a valid exercise of jurisdiction by the President over acts of subordinates within that office.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED, and the assailed decision is SET ASIDE. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1 Gatmaytan vs. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 487.
2 First Philippine International Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 259.
3 Buan vs. Lopez, Jr., 145 SCRA 34.
4 Employees Compensation Commission vs. Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA 717.
5 Administrative Circular No. 04-94, April 1, 1994; Fil-Estate Golf and Development, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA 614; Prubankers Association vs. Prudential Bank & Trust Company, 302 SCRA 74.
6 Paat vs. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 167.
7 Section 17, Article VI, 1987 Constitution.