LCI filed an application with the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) for authority to operate a public utility bus service in Mindanao. Two other bus companies (BEX and VT) which already have certificates of public convenience covering the route applied for by LCI opposed the application, claiming that said route was being sufficiently served by them already. But the LTFRB nevertheless granted the application.
On appeal to the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC) after their motion for reconsideration was denied by the LTFRB, the decision granting LCI’s application was reversed and set aside. This time it was LCI which asked the DOTC to reconsider its decision. But the DOTC did not reconsider its order and instead directed LCI to cease and desist from operating buses along the contested route.
So LCI filed a letter-appeal to the Office of the President seeking to set aside the actions of the DOTC denying its application. Then LCI likewise filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a petition for certiorari questioning the same actions of the DOTC subject of the letter of appeal to the Office of the President. Later however, LCI filed a notice of withdrawal of said petition in the CA. But the CA, instead of acting on the withdrawal, dismissed the petition for failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 42 Section 1 (on payment of docket and other lawful fees, and service of copies).
Subsequently, the Office of the President (OP) issued a memorandum order (MO) directing that the execution of the DOTC cease and desist order be meanwhile stayed. This prompted BEX and VT to file with the CA a petition for certiorari assailing the OP’s MO. They argued that the OP had no jurisdiction to issue said order in the absence of any law providing for an appeal from the DOTC to the OP, adding that LCI was guilty of forum shopping in appealing to the OP.
The CA granted BEX and VT’s petition basically on the ground of forum shopping. It ordered the dismissal of the appeal filed by LCI before the OP and reinstated the order of the DOTC enjoining LC from operating its buses along the contested route.
Was the CA correct?
No.
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 President’s power of control over all executive departments, bureaus and offices. The OP validly acquired jurisdiction over the case upon the filing therewith of the appeal by LCI. Said jurisdiction is not lost by the subsequent recourse by LCI of the certiorari proceedings before the CA. The decision of the CA on the petition of BEX and VT ordering the dismissal of the appeal taken to the OP on the ground of forum shopping is flawed. It is the OP, not the CA, which could dismiss the case pending before that office. It also behooves the 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. The CA’s order to dismiss the appeal pending with the OP constitutes an undue intrusion into a valid exercise of jurisdiction by the President over acts of subordinates within that office (Landcar Inc. vs. Bachelor Express etc. et al. G.R. 154377) December 8, 2003).