GR 138525; (July, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 138525 . July 20, 2006.
EDUARDO N. ATIENZA, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, MARITIME INDUSTRY AUTHORITY and ENRICO EULOGIO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Eduardo Atienza, general manager of Manila Ace Shipping Lines, sold the passenger vessel M/V ACE-1 to private respondent Enrico Eulogio, who settled the vessel’s mortgage. Atienza delivered the original Coast Guard certificates to Eulogio. Despite the sale, Atienza subsequently secured a new set of vessel certificates from a different Coast Guard District by transferring the homeport, falsely claiming the original certificates were lost when he later applied for their re-issuance with the Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA). This allowed two conflicting sets of certificates to exist.
Eulogio later presented the original certificates to MARINA to effect a transfer in his name, exposing Atienza’s misrepresentation. MARINA thus filed an administrative case against Atienza for providing false information regarding the loss of the certificates and for failing to disclose the prior mortgage and sale.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding MARINA’s administrative finding of misrepresentation against petitioner and the denial of his motion for extension of provisional authority to operate the vessel.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. Procedurally, the petition was flawed as it was filed as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of a petition for review under Rule 45. Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal; where an appeal is available, it will not prosper. Petitioner failed to timely appeal the Court of Appeals’ decision, rendering it final.
On the merits, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals in affirming MARINA’s actions. MARINA, as the specialized agency regulating maritime affairs, its factual findings are accorded great respect. The evidence substantiated that petitioner committed misrepresentation by falsely declaring the loss of the original vessel certificates to secure a new set, despite having sold the vessel and delivered the documents. This act violated administrative rules, warranting the imposed fine under the applicable MARINA memorandum circular. The denial of the motion for extension of provisional authority was also proper, as it was rendered moot by the cancellation of the fraudulently obtained certificates. The Court upheld the administrative penalties as a valid exercise of MARINA’s regulatory authority.