Philippine Corinthian Liner Corp. v. Court of Appeals

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 205669. June 11, 2014.]

PHILIPPINE CORINTHIAN LINER CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND LAND TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING AND REGULATORY BOARD, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 11, 2014, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 205669 (Philippine Corinthian Liner Corporation v. Court of Appeals and Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board). — This is a petition for certiorari1 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking to reverse the December 6, 2012 and February 29, 2012 Resolutions 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissing the petition 3 filed by Philippine Corinthian Liner Corporation (petitioner) assailing the Cease and Desist Order 4 in Case Nos. 2002-6498, 2002-6492, 2002-6495, 2002-6500, 2002-6494, 2002-6454, 2002-6501, 2002-6493, 2002-6499, and the Supplemental Order 5 relative to Case No. 2002-6499, both issued by the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) on November 25, 2011.

The Facts:

On January 21, 2011, the LTFRB issued an order cancelling the Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) granted to petitioner under Case Nos. 2002-6498, 2002-6492, 2002-6495, 2002-6500, 2002-6494, 2002-6454, 2002-6501 and 2002-6493 for the alleged refusal to provide adequate transport services in violation of the terms and conditions of its franchise, committed during the November 15, 2010 transport strike held in Metro Manila.

With its motion for reconsideration denied, petitioner then filed its Notice of Appeal with the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) Secretary on November 11, 2011. On the same date, a certification attesting to the timely filing of the Notice of Appeal was also requested by petitioner from the Franchising Review Staff (FRS) of the DOTC.

Acting favorably on the request, FRS issued a certification, 6 dated November 14, 2011, attesting to the timeliness of the appeal and declaring that the timely appeal stayed the execution of the LTFRB cancellation order, dated March 3, 2011, pursuant to the provision of Section 21, Book VII of the 1987 Administrative Code which provides:

Section 21. Effect of Appeal. — The appeal shall stay the decision appealed from unless otherwise provided by law, or the appellate agency directs execution pending appeal, as it may deem just, considering the nature and circumstances of the case.

In disagreement with the certification issued by FRS, the DOTC Undersecretary for Legal Affairs sent the November 18, 2011 Letter 7 to the LTFRB expressing his view that the FRS declaration to the effect that execution was stayed by the appeal was erroneous for being contrary to the above cited rule of the Administrative Code. The Undersecretary pointed out that Section 21 Book VII of the Revised Administrative Code provided for a caveat that the Secretary may direct that the appeal shall not stay the decision appealed from; and that Section 3, Rule 19 of the LTFRB Rules, stating that the appeal would not stay the award, order or decision of the Board could be construed as the Secretary's directive. He added that the Rules of the LTFRB, 8 were signed and approved by the Secretary; thus the order of execution pending appeal was upheld. For said reason, the DOTC ordered LTFRB to issue a new certification without the statement that the appeal shall stay the execution. The order was acted upon accordingly.

On November 25, 2011, the LTFRB issued an order for the petitioner to cease and desist from operating the unity in Case Nos. 2002-6498, 2002-6492, 2002-6495, 2002-6500, 2002-6494, 2002-6454, 2002-6501, 2002-6493, and 2002-6499. On the same date, LTFRB also issued a supplemental order including Case No. 2002-6499 in the January 21, 2011 Order of cancellation.

Aggrieved, on January 23, 2012, petitioner seasonably filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing the above-mentioned orders of the LTFRB. The CA, in its February 29, 2012 Resolution, 9 dismissed the petition on the ground that no prior motion for reconsideration was filed with the LTFRB.

On reconsideration, the CA issued the December 6, 2012 Resolution 10 affirming the dismissal of the petition. Petitioner received the same only on December 27, 2012. CSEHIa

Hence, petitioner filed, by registered mail, this petition on February 25, 2013, the last day for filing it. The docket fees were paid only on the next day, February 26, 2013.

Issues:

1. Whether the petition was filed within the reglementary period.

2. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the petition filed before it.

Petitioner asks that its petition be given due course in the interest of justice despite its failure to pay the required docket fees on time. In his manifestation, petitioner's counsel stated that he was unable to obtain the postal money order to accompany the filing by mail because he did not know the exact amount of the docket fees to be paid.

Petitioner further contends that the CA gravely abused its discretion (1) when it ignored the undisputed fact that the two orders of LTFRB were issued when jurisdiction over the subject matters thereof was no longer with LTFRB, but had been effectively elevated to the DOTC with the timely appeal lodged by petitioner; (2) when it declared that petitioner's extreme urgency justification for the relaxation of the rules on requiring a motion for reconsideration before filing a Rule 65 petition fell short of the requirement as it involved only economic considerations of petitioner's company, not necessarily the general welfare of the community, or one involving public interest; and (3) when it ruled, without citing any supporting evidence, that the resolution of the LTFRB cancelling the CPC of petitioner did not, in any way, deprive commuters of adequate transportation considering the volume of public utility vehicles accessible to the public.

The Court finds no merit in the petition.

First. The failure of petitioner to timely pay the required docket fees, even if one day late, is sufficient ground to dismiss this petition.

It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the payment of docket fees is jurisdictional in nature 11 and failure to comply can be considered as a ground to instantly dismiss a petition. In this case, the CA resolution was received on December 27, 2012 and as such, this petition, together with the docket fees, should have been filed on February 25, 2013, the last day of the 60-day reglementary period under Rule 65. Although the petition was filed by registered mail on February 25, 2013, the docket fees were only paid on February 26, 2013.

Second. The Court finds no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA when it dismissed the petition for failure of petitioner to move for reconsideration of the LTFRB decision before resorting to the extraordinary remedy of certiorari before the CA. Well-established is the rule that the filing of the said motion is indispensable before Rule 65 can be availed of. 12 This requirement is intended to allow the court or agency, the LTFRB in this case, to rectify its mistake, if any, without the intervention of a higher court. 13 Moreover, it must be remembered that Rule 65 may not be used in cases where there is a plain, speedy and adequate remedy available to an aggrieved party. 14

It is true that the rule on filing of a motion for reconsideration may be disregarded in cases where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner. 15 The petitioner, however, failed to show that its case should be exempt. As observed by the CA, the extreme urgency argument touted by petitioner merely involved economic considerations for its company that is, deprivation of profit due to the cancellation of its franchise and not necessarily for the general welfare of the community.

Third. Petitioner resorted to a wrong remedy. Petitioner should have at least appealed by way of certiorari under Rule 45. It, however, chose the wrong remedy in challenging the ruling of the CA. As reiterated in Heirs of Spouses Reterta v. Spouses Mores and Lopez, 16 the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 lies only when "there is no appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." Certiorari cannot be allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment despite the availability of that remedy, certiorari not being a substitute for lost appeal. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.

Here, petitioner lost the remedy of appeal and, as correctly pointed out by the respondent in its Comment, 17 the questioned CA resolutions could have been appealed under Rule 45 within the applicable reglementary period provided for by the Rules. Unfortunately, petitioner did not do so and instead chose the wrong remedy of certiorari under Rule 65.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.(Villarama, Jr., J., designated Acting Member in view of the vacancy in the Third Division, per Special Order No. 1691, dated May 22, 2014) HCacTI

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 5-25.

2. Id. at 27-28, 30-32. Penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, with Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Leoncia R. Dimagiba, concurring.

3. Id. at 33.

4. Id. at 98.

5. Id. at 100.

6. Id. at 493.

7. Id. at 494.

8. LTFRB Rules, Rule 19, Section 3.

9. Rollo, pp. 27-28. Penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, with Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Leoncia R. Dimagiba, concurring.

10. Id. at 30-32. Penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, with Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Leoncia R. Dimagiba. concurring.

11. Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 233 Phil. 579, 584 (1987).

12. Audi AG v. Mejia, 555 Phil. 348, 33 (2007).

13. Korea Technologies Co., Ltd. v. Lerma, 566 Phil. 1 (2008).

14. Heirs of Spouses Reterta v. Spouses Mores and Lopez, G.R. No. 159941. August 17, 2011, 655 SCRA 580.

15. Sim v. National Labor Relations Commission, 560 Phil. 762, 768 (2007).

16. Supra note 14.

17. Rollo, pp. 621-647.