Case Digest (G.R. No. 48113)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 48113)
Facts:
Charles L. Yang v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Professional Regulation Commission, Board of Electrical Engineering, and Benjamin M. Limson, G.R. No. L-48113, June 06, 1990, First Division, Narvasa, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Charles L. Yang sought review of a Court of Appeals resolution denying his petition to enjoin enforcement of respondents' order suspending him from the practice of electrical engineering.The controversy began when Benjamin M. Limson filed an administrative complaint for unprofessional conduct against Yang before the Board of Electrical Engineering (Administrative Case No. 170). After hearing, the Board found Yang guilty and imposed a two-year suspension by decision dated June 29, 1976. Yang appealed to the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC), which on November 18, 1976 affirmed the Board’s decision and required Yang to surrender his certificate of registration for safekeeping during suspension; his motion for reconsideration before the PRC was denied.
Yang then petitioned the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal for judicial review. The CFI dismissed the petition on May 19, 1977 for lack of cause of action, holding that Yang failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not appealing the PRC decision to the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission pursuant to Letter of Implementation No. 47 (LOI No. 47) implementing P.D. No. 839. Yang appealed to the Court of Appeals (Third Division — Justices Reyes (ponente), Busran and Alampay). While that appeal was pending, Yang received a January 20, 1978 letter from the Board’s Executive Director ordering surrender of his certificate and to desist from practice; he filed in the Court of Appeals a verified petition for preliminary injunction/TRO. The Court of Appeals issued a TRO on January 30, 1978 but, after hearing, by Resolution dated March 8, 1978 set the TRO aside and denied injunctive relief; a motion for reconsideration was denied April 11, 1978. The Court of Appeals had grounded its dismissal on LOI No. 47, which it read as transferring to the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) the function of deciding appeals in administrative cases involving professionals. Yang sought certiorari review in this Court.
Issues:
- Did petitioner fail to exhaust administrative remedies, such that the courts lacked jurisdiction because an appeal from the PRC decision was required to be taken to the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission under LOI No. 47 / P.D. 839?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in setting aside the TRO and denying injunctive relief by declining to take cognizance of Yang’s appeal from the PRC and dismissing for lack of jurisdiction?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)