G.R. No. L-42380 June 22, 1990
DATILES AND COMPANY, represented by LORETA DATILES and LARRY DATILES, petitioner, vs. Honorable MELQUIADES S. SUCALDITO, Presiding Judge of Branch I, Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Sur, Honorable MATIAS A. GUIEB, or his Successor-in-Office, Regional Director, Region No. IX, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources and JESUS DEYPALUBOS and DANIEL CABELIEZA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Datiles and Company holds Fishpond Lease Agreement (FLA) No. 1902 for a 175-hectare area in Zamboanga del Sur. In 1973, it filed Civil Case No. 1389 for injunction against private respondents Jesus Deypalubos and Daniel Cabelieza for unlawfully occupying portions of the leased area. The trial court issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, restoring petitioner’s possession in May 1974. Meanwhile, Deypalubos had filed a formal protest with the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) against petitioner’s lease over a 49-hectare portion. A Barrio Council resolution also questioned the grant and requested its reduction. Initially, the BFAR Director ordered any hearing on the protest held in abeyance pending resolution of the civil case.
Subsequently, in January 1975, the BFAR Director issued a new memorandum directing public respondent Regional Director Matias Guieb to conduct an immediate formal investigation of the issues in the protest and resolution “not touched upon in Civil Case No. 1389.” Petitioner then filed Special Civil Case No. 1426 for prohibition and/or injunction before the Court of First Instance to restrain the investigation. The respondent judge initially issued a restraining order but later dismissed the petition, upholding the respondents’ arguments on lack of jurisdiction due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies and citing Presidential Decree No. 605, which prohibits courts from issuing injunctions in cases involving actions on natural resource permits.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for prohibition to restrain a BFAR Regional Director from conducting an investigation into a protest against a fishpond lease agreement.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative, reversing the trial court’s dismissal. The legal logic proceeds from the nature of the administrative action and the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies. The Court held that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the jurisdictional bar under P.D. No. 605 presuppose that the administrative officer is acting within his delegated authority. In this case, the BFAR Director’s memorandum explicitly limited the investigation to issues “not touched upon in Civil Case No. 1389.” The Court found that the issues raised in the protest and the Barrio Council resolution were the very same issues of unlawful entry and prior occupancy that had already been investigated administratively by the Bureau and adjudicated judicially in the pending civil case for injunction. The protest contained no new substantial matter justifying a reinvestigation.
Consequently, public respondent Guieb, in proceeding with an investigation on these already-settled issues, was acting in excess of his delegated authority as circumscribed by the Director’s memorandum. When an administrative officer acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply, and the special civil action of prohibition is proper to prevent such unauthorized exercise of power. The Regional Trial Court therefore had jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The Court ordered public respondent Guieb to desist from investigating the protest and resolution.