Case Digest (G.R. No. 154377)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 154377)
Facts:
Land Car, Inc. v. Bachelor Express, Inc. and Vallacar Transit, Inc., G.R. No. 154377, December 08, 2003, Supreme Court Third Division, Vitug, J., writing for the Court.On 21 May 1999, Land Car, Inc. (petitioner) filed with the Regional Office of the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB), Region XII, a verified application for a certificate of public convenience to operate a bus service from Davao City to Cagayan de Oro City via Butuan City. Bachelor Express, Inc. and Vallacar Transit, Inc. (respondents), existing grantees on the route, opposed the application alleging adequate service and the prospect of "cutthroat competition."
On 29 October 1999, the LTFRB granted petitioner’s application. Respondents’ motion for reconsideration was denied by the LTFRB on 27 January 2000. Respondents appealed to the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC). On 05 June 2000, the DOTC Secretary reversed the LTFRB decision; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of that reversal was denied on 30 August 2000. Respondents sought immediate implementation, and on 03 October 2000 the LTFRB directed petitioner to cease operations on the contested route.
On 07 October 2000 petitioner filed a letter-appeal to the Office of the President seeking to set aside the DOTC Secretary’s resolution and order. Petitioner also filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (C.A.-G.R. SP No. 61159) challenging the DOTC Secretary’s action, but later filed a notice of withdrawal of that certiorari petition. The Court of Appeals, however, did not act on the withdrawal and, in a resolution dated 09 November 2000, dismissed the petition for failure to comply with Section 1, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure for non-forum shopping.
Meanwhile, on 20 October 2000 the Office of the President issued a memorandum temporarily staying execution of the DOTC Secretary’s resolution and order. On 15 January 2001 respondents filed a subsequent petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in the Court of Appeals (C.A.-G.R. SP No. 62619) assailing that memorandum, arguing that (a) there was no law permitting an appeal from the DOTC Secretary to the Office of the President and (b) petitioner was guilty of forum shopping. On 18 June 2001 the Court of Appeals granted respondents’ petition, dismissed petitioner’s appeal before the Office of the President for forum shopping, and reinstated the DOTC Secretary’s resolution and order enjoining petitioner from operating on the route.
Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court. In the instant decision the Court reviewed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal for forum shopping and its interference with the Office of the President’s exercise of jurisdiction.
Issues:
- Did petitioner's filing of a letter-appeal to the Office of the President while a certiorari petition was pending in the Court of Appeals constitute forum shopping justifying dismissal of the appeal to the Office of the President?
- Did the Office of the President validly acquire jurisdiction to review the DOTC Secretary’s decision, and did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing that appeal and intruding on the Office of the President’s jurisdiction?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)