G.R. No. 154377 - Land Car Inc. vs. Bachelor Express Inc.

On 21 May 1999, petitioner Land Car, Inc. filed a verified application with the Regional Office of the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB), Region XII, to operate a public utility bus service from Davao City to Cagayan de Oro City via Butuan City.
Respondents, Bachelor Express, Inc. and Vallacar Transit, Inc., who were themselves holders of certificates of public convenience, opposed the application on the ground that the route was already adequately served and that granting the application would result in “cutthroat competition.”

On 29 October 1999, the LTFRB rendered its decision in favor of petitioner, granting the application and directing the issuance of the corresponding certificate.
Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on 27 January 2000.

Following the LTFRB decision, respondents appealed to the Office of the Secretary of the DOTC.
On 05 June 2000, the DOTC Secretary reversed the LTFRB’s decision, leading petitioner to file a motion for reconsideration, which was subsequently denied on 30 August 2000.

On 03 October 2000, after respondents moved for immediate implementation of the DOTC Secretary’s decision, the LTFRB granted the motion, directing petitioner to cease and desist from operating its buses on the contested route.
On 07 October 2000, petitioner filed a letter-appeal with the Office of the President seeking to set aside the DOTC Secretary’s resolutions and orders.
Concurrently, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (docketed as C.A.-G.R. SP No. 61159) to challenge the same resolutions and orders, but later filed a notice of withdrawal of this petition.
Despite the withdrawal notice, the appellate court dismissed the petition on 09 November 2000 on the grounds of non-compliance with Section 1, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure regarding forum shopping.

On 20 October 2000, the Office of the President issued a memorandum ordering a stay on the execution of the DOTC Secretary’s resolution and order.
On 15 January 2001, respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals under Rule 65 (docketed as C.A.-G.R. SP No. 62619), challenging the memorandum order issued by the Office of the President and alleging petitioner’s involvement in forum shopping.
On 18 June 2001, the Court of Appeals granted respondents’ petition for certiorari, primarily on the ground that petitioner engaged in forum shopping, thereby ordering the dismissal of petitioner’s appeal pending with the Office of the President and reinstating the DOTC Secretary’s resolution and order.

In the instant appeal, petitioner contended that the appellate court decided the issue in a manner inconsistent with applicable jurisprudence.
The petitioner argued that dismissing its appeal with the Office of the President on the grounds of forum shopping was flawed, as it intruded into the valid exercise of jurisdiction by the Office of the President.

Whether petitioner committed forum shopping by simultaneously seeking redress through both a letter-appeal to the Office of the President and a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on the basis of identical issues.
Whether the Office of the President duly acquired and retained jurisdiction to review the DOTC Secretary’s decision despite petitioner’s subsequent recourse to the Court of Appeals.
Whether the dismissal of petitioner’s appeal pending with the Office of the President, on the grounds of forum shopping by the Court of Appeals, amounted to an undue intrusion into the exclusive jurisdiction of the Office of the President.
Whether the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, which requires that all available administrative channels be exhausted before seeking judicial intervention, was properly applied in this case.