STA. CLARA SHIPPING CORPORATION VS. EUGENIA T.

SAN
PABLO 615 SCRA 615 SCRA 318 || March 15, 2010
FACTS:
Sta. Clara filed an application with Maritime Industry Authority
(MARINA) for a Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) to
operate MV King Frederick along the route Matnog, Sorsogon
Allen, Northern Samar and vice versa.
The application was opposed by pioneering operators Bicolandia
Lines, Inc., and Eugenia San Pablo on the ground that, with 5
vessels already plying the route, the entry of a 6th vessel would
cause grievous problems in berthing space and time schedule.
MARINA granted the application of Sta. Clara for five years, but
when San Pablo filed a petition for review before the CA, the
appellate court reversed it.
Meanwhile, RA 9295 was issued requiring existing operators to
apply for CPCs under the new law.
Pursuant to this, Sta. Clara filed with the Legazpi Maritime
Regional Office (LMRO) an application for new CPC to operate
MV King Frederick and two other vessels in several routes.
o LMRO granted the application.
When Sta. Clara filed an MR in the previous case before the CA, it
did not disclose the fact that it was granted a new CPC under
RA 9295.
o San Pablo reported this to the CA when she filed a motion
to hold Sta. Clara in contempt.(#crabmogirl)
o CA denied Sta. Claras MR and cancelled its new CPC.
ISSUE:

W/N The CA gravely abused its discretion when it failed to take juducial
cognizance of RA 9295, when it reversed the decision of the honourable
MARINA despite the fact that the decision was already final and executory
and in perfect accord with law and jurisprudence.
HELD:
The petition has merit outside of its arguments.

Sta. Clara repeatedly argued in its pleadings that the MARINA

decision was superseded by the LMRO decision, and that the old
CPC for King Frederick was replaced by a new one in accordance
with RA 9295. Even San Pablo did not dispute the fact that the
MARINA decision and the old CPC were already defunct.
Because of this, there was no more justiciable controversy for the
CA to decide, and no more remedy to grant or deny.
Despite Sta. Clara not disclosing the fact of its application for a
new CPC when it filed its MR, the Court was already aware, at the
time it made its decision, of the new developments that took place.
Rule XV, Section 1 of the IRR of RA 9295, a peculiar process of
administrative remedy provides that the MARINA
Administrator, and not the CA, is vested with primary
jurisdiction over matters relating to the issuance of a new CPC.
o Questions of validity of the new CPC are cognizable by
the MARINA Administrator and, consonant with the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the CA should have
referred San Pablo to MARINA for the resolution of her
challenge to the validity of the new CPC of Sta. Clara.
Ateneo de Manila Law School, AY 2014-2015
Second Semester, Prof. NT