In a dispute concerning the operation of public utility buses, the Supreme Court clarified the boundaries between administrative and judicial authority. The Court ruled that when an administrative appeal is filed with the Office of the President, that office retains jurisdiction even if a party simultaneously seeks judicial intervention in the Court of Appeals. This decision underscores the importance of exhausting administrative remedies before resorting to judicial action, and it affirms the President’s power to review decisions of subordinate executive officials. The ruling helps prevent parties from circumventing administrative processes and ensures that administrative agencies have the opportunity to correct their own errors before judicial review.

When Two Paths Diverge: Forum Shopping or Exhaustion of Remedies?

The case revolves around Land Car, Inc.’s application to operate a public utility bus service from Davao City to Cagayan de Oro City via Butuan City. This application was opposed by Bachelor Express, Inc. and Vallacar Transit, Inc., existing certificate of public convenience holders. After the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) initially granted Land Car’s application, the Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC) Secretary reversed this decision. Land Car then appealed to the Office of the President and simultaneously filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, questioning the DOTC Secretary’s decision. The Court of Appeals eventually dismissed Land Car’s petition based on the doctrine of non-forum shopping, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s analysis centered on the concept of **forum shopping**, which it defined as “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.” The court emphasized that forum shopping extends beyond courts and applies to situations where litigation commences in court while an administrative proceeding is still pending. In such instances, it is done in anticipation of an unfavorable administrative ruling, with the aim of securing a favorable court ruling. The Supreme Court has taken steps to deter this practice, including the requirement for a certification of non-forum shopping in petitions filed with the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals, as formalized in Section 5, Rule 7, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

There was no question about the existence of an identity of cause of action and reliefs sought between the 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 05 June 2000 and 30 August 2000, respectively, were sought to be set aside in both appeals filed by petitioner.

However, the Court highlighted the significance of the **doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies**. This doctrine requires that all available administrative remedies be pursued before seeking judicial intervention. The Supreme Court has said:

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 court’s judicial power is invoked.

The Court further clarified that the action of a department head carries only the implied approval of the President, and the President retains the power to review the decision of the former. This power stems from the President’s authority of control over all executive departments, bureaus, and offices, as enshrined in Section 17, Article VII, of the 1987 Constitution, which states: “The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.” The Office of the President validly acquired jurisdiction over the case upon the filing of the appeal. Jurisdiction which has attached in the first instance continues until the final resolution of the case. This jurisdiction is not lost by the subsequent recourse by the petitioner of the certiorari proceedings before the Court of Appeals. By analogy, consider these differing viewpoints:

Court of Appeals	Ordered dismissal of the appeal before the Office of the President.
Supreme Court	Ruled that only the Office of the President could dismiss the case pending before it; the Court of Appeals had no such authority.

The Court concluded that the appellate court erred in ordering the dismissal of the appeal pending with the Office of the President. It is the latter, not the appellate court, which could dismiss the case pending before that office. It is best for courts of justice to stay 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.

FAQs

What was the central legal issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the Court of Appeals could dismiss an appeal pending before the Office of the President based on the doctrine of forum shopping, when the Office of the President had already validly acquired jurisdiction over the case.
What is forum shopping?	Forum shopping is the act of filing multiple lawsuits in different courts or tribunals, either simultaneously or successively, based on the same cause of action, facts, and issues, hoping to obtain a favorable ruling in one of them.
What is the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies?	This doctrine requires parties to exhaust all available administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention. It ensures that administrative agencies have the opportunity to correct their errors and resolve disputes within their jurisdiction.
Why is exhaustion of administrative remedies important?	It respects the authority of administrative agencies, promotes efficiency by allowing them to resolve issues within their expertise, and prevents premature judicial intervention in administrative matters.
Does the President have the power to review decisions of department secretaries?	Yes, the President has the power to review decisions of department secretaries based on the President’s power of control over all executive departments, bureaus, and offices, as provided in the Constitution.
What was the Court of Appeals’ mistake in this case?	The Court of Appeals erred by ordering the dismissal of the appeal pending before the Office of the President, as it was the Office of the President, not the appellate court, that had the authority to dismiss the case pending before it.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals’ decision was flawed and set it aside, affirming that the Office of the President had the authority to resolve the appeal pending before it.
What is the practical implication of this ruling?	This ruling clarifies that once an appeal is filed with the Office of the President, that office retains jurisdiction over the matter, and lower courts should not interfere until the administrative process is complete.

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle of exhausting administrative remedies and clarifies the respective roles of administrative and judicial bodies in resolving disputes. It also highlights the importance of adhering to procedural rules to avoid the pitfalls of forum shopping, which can undermine the integrity of both administrative and judicial processes.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: LAND CAR, INC. VS. BACHELOR EXPRESS, INC. AND VALLACAR TRANSIT, INC., G.R. No. 154377, December 08, 2003