GR 113576; (July, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 113576 & G.R. No. 118235 ; July 1, 2004
CARLOS GOTHONG LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. PACIENCIO M. BALBON, & COKALIONG SHIPPING LINES, INC., respondents.
FACTS
Carlos Gothong Lines, Inc. (Gothong) applied with the Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) for a provisional authority to operate its vessel M/V Our Lady of Guadalupe on the Cebu-Surigao-Maasin route. Cokaliong Shipping Lines, Inc. (Cokaliong) opposed, citing over-tonnage and potential cut-throat competition. MARINA initially denied Gothong’s application pending a market study but later reversed itself and granted a three-month provisional authority, expressly stating it could be “cancelled, revoked or modified at any time as public interest may require.”
Cokaliong then filed a Motion for Revocation, alleging the vessel was unseaworthy and the route was over-tonnaged. Without serving the motion on Gothong or setting it for a specific hearing, MARINA issued an Order setting the motion for hearing but also immediately suspending Gothong’s provisional authority pending resolution of the seaworthiness issue. Instead of filing a reply with MARINA, Gothong filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, challenging the suspension order for being issued ex parte and without proper notice.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding MARINA’s Order suspending Gothong’s provisional authority.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petitions and upheld the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centers on the nature of a provisional authority and the proper remedy against its suspension. The provisional authority granted to Gothong was explicitly conditional and subject to modification or revocation by MARINA at any time based on public interest. When Cokaliong presented documentary evidence questioning the vessel’s seaworthiness, MARINA’s act of suspending the authority pending a hearing was a valid exercise of its regulatory power to protect public safety, not a grave abuse of discretion.
Furthermore, Gothong improperly availed of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari. A writ of certiorari requires a showing of grave abuse of discretion and is only available when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Gothong had such a remedy: it should have first filed a motion for reconsideration with MARINA, presenting counter-evidence on the vessel’s seaworthiness to allow the agency to reconsider its suspension order. By bypassing this administrative recourse, Gothong’s petition for certiorari was premature. The Court emphasized that certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal or correct mere errors of judgment, and MARINA’s action, taken in the interest of public service, was within its discretionary authority.