G.R. No. 154377; December 8, 2003
LAND CAR, INC., petitioner, vs. BACHELOR EXPRESS, INC. AND VALLACAR TRANSIT, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Land Car, Inc. applied with the LTFRB for a bus franchise. The LTFRB granted the application, but respondents, existing operators, appealed to the DOTC Secretary, who reversed the LTFRB. Petitioner then filed a letter-appeal to the Office of the President seeking to set aside the DOTC Secretary’s ruling. Simultaneously, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging the same DOTC ruling, which it later withdrew. The CA, instead of acting on the withdrawal, dismissed the certiorari petition for non-compliance with the rule on non-forum shopping. Meanwhile, the Office of the President issued an order staying the execution of the DOTC Secretary’s decision.
Respondents then filed their own certiorari petition with the CA, assailing the Office of the President’s stay order for lack of jurisdiction and due to petitioner’s alleged forum shopping. The CA granted respondents’ petition, ordered the dismissal of petitioner’s appeal before the Office of the President, and reinstated the DOTC Secretary’s ruling, primarily on the ground of forum shopping.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner was guilty of forum shopping and in ordering the dismissal of the appeal pending with the Office of the President.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the CA decision. The legal logic is twofold. First, on forum shopping, while there was identity of cause of action and relief sought between the letter-appeal to the Office of the President and the withdrawn certiorari petition to the CA, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is paramount. This doctrine requires that an administrative decision be appealed to the highest administrative authority, like the Office of the President reviewing a department head’s act, before judicial recourse is invoked. The President’s power of control over executive departments empowers this review.
Second, and crucially, the CA committed a jurisdictional error. The Office of the President validly acquired jurisdiction over the case upon the filing of the administrative appeal. That jurisdiction continues until final resolution. It was not for the CA to dismiss the appeal pending before a separate, competent office; only the Office of the President could dismiss its own pending case. The CA’s order constituted an undue intrusion into the President’s valid exercise of administrative jurisdiction. Courts should respect the administrative redress process and avoid interference until it is completed.