RULING

PEÑAFRANCIA SHIPPING CORPORATION, et al. v. 168 SHIPPING No. The order, ruling decision or resolution of the MARINA
LINES, INC., Administrator shall be final and executory within fifteen (15) days
G. R. NO. 188952, 21 September 2016, THIRD DIVISION unless an administrative appeal is filed with the MARINA Board or
(Jardeleza, J.) petition for judicial review is filed with the Court of Appeals or Supreme
Court in accordance with the provisions of the Revised Rules of Court.
DOCTRINE OF THE CASE: Petitioners claim that this provision of the IRR shows that "the
appropriate remedy against the adverse ruling of the MARINA Board is
“The underlying principle of the rule on exhaustion of a petition for review to the Honorable Court of Appeals under Rule 43
administrative remedies rests on the presumption that the of the Rules of Court." However, as correctly pointed out by the
administrative agency, if afforded a complete chance to pass upon the respondent the IRR applies only to an appeal of the order, ruling,
matter, will decide the same correctly.” decision or resolution of the MARINA Administrator. There is no
procedure for appeal of the decisions of the MARINA Board. Hence,
FACTS the IRR cannot be the basis for petitioners' appeal. Rule 43 governs all
appeals from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or
On September 28, 2007, respondent 168 Shipping Lines, Inc. authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of quasi-judicial
filed with the MARINA Regional Office V (MARINA RO V), Legaspi City functions. The MARINA is a quasi-judicial agency, and though it is not
an application for the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience among the enumerated agencies in Rule 43, the list is not meant to be
(CPC) to operate M/V Star Ferry I, a roll-on-roll-off vessel, in the route exclusive.
Matnog, Sorsogon to Allen, Northern Samar, and vice versa. Petitioners However, while Rule 43 provides for the appeal procedure from
Peñafrancia Shipping Corporation and Santa Clara Shipping quasi-judicial agencies to the CA, the aggrieved party must still exhaust
Corporation existing operators who own and operate ferry boats serving administrative remedies prior to recourse to the CA. The doctrine of
the ports of Allen, Northern Samar and Matnog, Sorsogon, intervened exhaustion of administrative remedies empowers the OP to review any
in the proceeding and opposed the application. determination or disposition of a department head. The doctrine allows,
The MARINA RO V, in its Decision dated February 1, 2008, indeed requires, an administrative decision to first be appealed to the
denied due course to respondent's application. Respondent filed its administrative superiors up to the highest level before it may be
Motion for Reconsideration but this was denied. elevated to a court of justice for review. The underlying principle of the
Marina Board reversed the decision of MARINA RO V and rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies rests on the presumption
granted respondent’s application for issuance of a CPC. that the administrative agency, if afforded a complete chance to pass
Petitioners appealed to the CA via Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. upon the matter, will decide the same correctly. The administrative
However, the CA dismissed the petition for failure of the petitioners to process is intended to provide less expensive and more speedy
exhaust administrative remedies, hence, for lack of cause of action. solutions to disputes. Where the enabling statute indicates a procedure
Petitioners' failure to resort to the DOTC Secretary and then the Office for administrative review and provides a system of administrative
of the President, in case of an adverse decision, and the filing of the appeal or reconsideration, the courts—for reasons of law, comity, and
herein petition before this Court is a premature invocation of the Court's convenience—will not entertain a case unless the available
intervention which renders the instant petition without cause of action, administrative remedies have been resorted to and the appropriate
hence, dismissible. authorities have been given an opportunity to act and correct the errors
committed in the administrative forum. While the doctrine of exhaustion
ISSUE of administrative remedies is flexible and may be disregarded in certain
Is a Rule 43 appeal to the Court of Appeals the proper remedy instances, the Supreme Courts finds that the case does not fall under
in assailing the resolution of MARINA? any of the recognized exceptional circumstances.
Chua Huat vs CA (2) WON the City Mayor and City Engineer committed grave abuse of
discretion in the exercise of such powers.
FACTS:
HELD:
Manuel Uy and Sons, Inc. requested Manila City Engineer and Building
Official Manuel del Rosario to condemn the dilapidated structures (1) YES. The power to condemn buildings and structures in the City of
located in Paco, Manila, all occupied by petitioners. The said official Manila falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the City Engineer, who is
issued notices of condemnation to petitioners based on Inspection at the same time the Building Officials. The Compilation of Ordinances
Reports showing that the buildings suffered from structural of the City of Manila and the National Building Code, also provide the
deterioration of as much as 80%. The condemnation orders stated that authority of the Building Officials, with respect to dangerous
the subject buildings were found to be in dangerous condition and buildings. Respondent City Engineer and Building Official can,
therefore condemned, subject to the confirmation of the Mayor as therefore, validly issue the questioned condemnation and demolition
required by Section 276 of the Compilation of Ordinances of the City of orders. This is also true with the Mayor who can approve or deny
Manila. It was stated that the notice was not an order to demolish as the condemnation orders as provided in Section 276 of
the findings of the City Engineer are still subject to the approval of the the Compilation of Ordinances of the City of Manila.
Mayor. The Mayor confirmed the condemnation orders.
(2) NO. The orders were made only after thorough ocular
More than 3 months after the issuance of the condemnation order, inspections were conducted by the City's Building Inspectors. The
petitioners protested against the notices of condemnation on the results of the inspections were set forth in a memorandum dated 16
ground that the buildings are still in good physical condition and are November 1982 where it was shown that all the buildings had
structurally sound. architectural, structural, sanitary, plumbing and electrical defects of up
to 80%. The respondent Mayor's act of approving
Later, the City Engineer issued a demolition order. The petitioners filed the condemnation orders was likewise done in accordance with law.
a Petition for Prohibition, with PI or TRO against the City Mayor, City Petitioners were given the opportunity to protest the condemnation but
Engineer, Building Officer and Manuel Uy and Sons Inc. only did so long after the lapse of the period (7 days) allowed them
under Section 276 of the Compilation of Ordinances of the City of
The Court issued the TRO and required respondents to comment. Manila.
Respondents prayed that the petition be dismissed claiming that: (1)
the power to condemn buildings and structures in the City of Manila
falls within the exclusive domain of the City Engineer pursuant to It is a settled doctrine that there is grave abuse of discretion amounting
Sections 275 and 276 of its Compilation of Ordinances (also Revised to lack of jurisdiction "when there is a capricious and whimsical exercise
Ordinances 1600); and (2) the power to condemn and remove buildings of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, such as where the
and structures is an exercise of the police power granted the City of power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of
Manila to promote public safety. passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross so as
to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform
ISSUE: the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law." (Chua Huat
vs. CA, G.R. No. L-53851, July 9, 1991)
(1) WON the power to condemn buildings and structures in the City of
Manila falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the City Engineer, who is
at the same time the Building Official;