OPS

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. Clara’s 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 Clara repeatedly argued in its pleadings that the MARINA decision was superseded by the LMRO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.