WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition.

We REVERSE
the Decision dated 26 May 2005 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 48447. We REINSTATE the Decision dated
23 November 1994 of the trial court.
SO ORDERED.
Brion, Abad, Villarama, Jr.** and Perez, JJ., concur.
Petition granted, judgment reversed.
Note.A foreign corporation not licensed to do business
in the Philippines is not absolutely incapacitated from
filing a suit in local courts. (Aboitiz Shipping Corporation
vs. Insurance Company of North America, 561 SCRA 262
[2008])
o0o

G.R. No. 169493.March 15, 2010.*

STA. CLARA SHIPPING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.

EUGENIA T. SAN PABLO, respondent.
Common Carriers; Ships and Shipping; Certificates of Public
Convenience (CPCs); Domestic Shipping Development Act of 2004
(R.A. 9295); Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA); Moot and
Academic Questions; The supervening passage of Republic Act (RA)
9295 and the filing by a shipping company of an application for a
new Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) under the new law
rendered the previous Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA)
decision and old CPC of no consequencethere was no more
justiciable controversy for the Court of Appeals to decide, no remedy
to grant or deny.The January 26, 2004 MARINA decision and the
old CPC were the subject matter of the petition of San Pablo before
the CA. The reversal of the decision and the revocation of the CPC
were the

_______________

** Designated additional member per Raffle dated 8 March 2010.

* THIRD DIVISION.

319

VOL. 615, March 15, 2010

319

Sta. Clara Shipping Corporation vs. San Pablo

reliefs sought in that petition. However, the passage of RA 9295 and
the filing by Sta. Clara of an application for a new CPC under the
new law supervened and rendered the January 26, 2004 MARINA
decision and old CPC of no consequence. There was no more
justiciable controversy for the CA to decide, no remedy to grant or
deny. The petition before the CA had become purely hypothetical,
there being nothing left to act upon.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Administrative Law; The
Court of Appeals ought to have given due deference to the exercise by
Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) of its sound administrative
discretion in applying its special knowledge, experience and expertise
to determine the technical and intricate factual matters relating to
the new Certificates of Public Convenience (CPCs) of a shipping
corporation.Although Sta. Clara filed with the CA a motion for
reconsideration of its May 31, 2005 decision without disclosing the
foregoing developments, by the time the CA resolved the motion for
reconsideration, it was already aware of the changes in the
situation of the parties: specifically, that Sta. Clara had filed a new
application under RA 9295 and that the LMRO had issued Sta.
Clara a new CPC. More significantly, the new CPC issued to Sta.
Clara was now subject to the rules implementing RA 9295. Under
Rule XV, Sec. 1 thereof, 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
CPC. Under the altered state of facts, the CA should have refrained
from resolving the pending motions before it and should have
declared the case mooted by supervening events. Besides, questions
on the validity of the new CPC are cognizable by the MARINA
Administrator and, consonant with the doctrine of primary
administrative 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. The CA ought to have given due deference to
the exercise by MARINA of its sound administrative discretion in
applying its special knowledge, experience and expertise to

determine the technical and intricate factual matters relating to the

new CPC of Sta. Clara.
Moot and Academic Issues; The Court must refrain from even
expressing an opinion on the remaining issues where the
determination thereof would be of no practical use or value, there
being no more justiciable controversy to speak of.The Court finds
no need to resolve the other issues raised by San Pablo for they deal
with the
320

320

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sta. Clara Shipping Corporation vs. San Pablo

merits of the very controversy which supervening events have

rendered merely theoretical. The Court must refrain from even
expressing an opinion on the remaining issues as the determination
thereof would be of no practical use or value, there being no more
justiciable controversy to speak of.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Florido & Largo Law Office for petitioner.
Rogelio E. Subong for respondent.
CORONA,J.:
Sta. Clara Shipping Corporation (Sta. Clara) assails the
May 31, 2005 decision1 and July 27, 2005 resolutions2 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) which annulled its certificate of
convenience (CPC) to operate MV King Frederick.
The facts are undisputed.
Sta. Clara filed an application, docketed as Case No.
2001-033, with Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) for
a CPC to operate MV King Frederick along the route
Matnog, SorsogonAllen, Northern Samar and vice versa.3
The application
_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao and concurred in by
Associate Justices Edgardo F. Sundiam and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente;
Rollo, p. 94. The decision annulled the January 26, 2004 decision of the
Maritime Industry Authority in Case No. 2001-033 and cancelled the old

CPC of MV King Frederick.

2 Id., at pp. 130 and 157. The first July 27, 2005 resolution denied the
motion for reconsideration of Sta. Clara. The second July 27, 2005
resolution annulled the June 6, 2005 decision of the Legaspi Maritime
Regional Office in Case No. LMRO-05-056 and cancelled the new CPC of
MV King Frederick.
3 Originally docketed as Case No. 20-072 (Rollo, p. 33), the application
was amended and docketed as Case No. 2001-033 (Rollo, p. 54).
321

VOL. 615, March 15, 2010

321

Sta. Clara Shipping Corporation vs. San Pablo

was opposed by the pioneering operators Bicolandia Lines,
Inc. and Eugenia T. San Pablo/E Tabinas Enterprises (San
Pablo) on the ground that, with five vessels4 already plying
the route, the entry of a sixth vessel would cause grievous
problems in berthing space and time schedule.5
MARINA granted the application of Sta. Clara in a
decision dated January 26, 2004, the dispositive portion of
which read:
WHEREFORE, for all foregoing considerations and finding that the
Applicant is a domestic corporation, legally and financially capable to
operate and maintain the existing service; that the approval of the
instant application will promote public interest and convenience in a
proper and suitable manner, this Authority hereby grants Applicant, Sta.
Clara Shipping Corporation, a Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) to
operate the ship, MV KING FREDERICK, in the route: Matnog,
Sorsogon-Allen, Northern Samar and vice-versa, for the carriage of
passengers and cargoes, for a period of FIVE (5) YEARS from date
hereof, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the terms and conditions set forth in the attached
Certificate of Public Convenience and its Rider thereto shall
remain in full force and effect;
2. That the Applicant shall submit the ships renewed
Certificate of Inspection (CI), Coastwise License (CWL),
Radio/Ship Station License, Class Certificate and Safety
Management Certificate prior to every expiration thereof,
and the ships Passenger Insurance Coverage fifteen (15)
days prior to every expiration thereof, otherwise, this
Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) shall be deemed
suspended until compliance/submission thereof;
3.That the Applicant shall at all times carry on board its ship

a copy of the latest authority to operate (CPC/PA/

SP),

the

PMMRR

1997,

relevant

MARINA/PCG/PPA

Circulars/Issuances, the SOLAS 74 as amended, Collision

_______________
4 Namely, MV Northern Samar, MV Princess Bicolandia and MV
Princess of Mayon (all owned by Bicolandia, et al.) and MV Maharlika I
and MV Maharlika II owned by St. Bernard Service Corp.
5 Motion to Dismiss, Rollo, p. 35.
322

322

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sta. Clara Shipping Corporation vs. San Pablo

Regulations 1972, STCW Convention 1978/95, among other

IMO Conventions;
4.That the Applicant shall comply with the provisions of
MARINA Memorandum

Circular

No.

154

dated

23

February 2000 on Reiteration of Safety-Related Policies/

Guidelines/Rules and Regulations For Guidance and Strict
Compliance; and
5. That any violation of the terms and conditions of this
Certificate of Public Convenience shall result to the
suspension/cancellation and/or revocation thereof.
(Approved during the 99th Quasi-Judicial Board Meeting held on
22 December 2003.)
SO ORDERED.6

Accordingly, a CPC7 was issued to Sta. Clara to operate

MV King Frederick for a period of five (5) years beginning
January 26, 2004.
Counsel for San Pablo received copy of the decision on
February 26, 2004.8 Her authorized representative received
another copy on February 27, 2004.9 However, it was only
on May 14, 2004 that San Pablo filed with MARINA a
motion for reconsideration.10 Consequently, MARINA
denied the motion for reconsideration for having been filed
out of time, citing Rule 17 of Memorandum Circular No. 74A which provides that a decision becomes final unless a
motion for reconsideration or appeal is filed within 15 days
from receipt thereof.11San Pablo filed a petition for review
with the CA.12
The CA granted the petition in a decision dated May 31,

2005, the dispositive portion of which read:

_______________
6 Rollo, pp. 74-75.
7 Id., at p. 77.
8 Id., at p. 75.
9 Id.
10 Rollo, p. 79.
11 Id., at p. 85.
12 CA Rollo, p. 2.
323

VOL. 615, March 15, 2010

323

Sta. Clara Shipping Corporation vs. San Pablo

UPON THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THIS CASE, THUS, the
petition at bench must be, as it is hereby GRANTED. The decision
of the MARINA in Maritime Industry Case No. 2001-033 dated
January 26, 2004 and its Resolution dated September 16, 2004
denying petitioners Motion for Reconsideration are hereby
VACATED and SET ASIDE. Without costs in this instance.
SO ORDERED.13

Meanwhile, two events transpired which altered the

state of facts in this case.
First, Republic Act (RA) 929514 and its implementing
rules and regulations15 were issued requiring existing
operators to apply for CPCs under the new law.16 Thus, on
May 4, 2005, Sta. Clara filed with the Legaspi Maritime
Regional Office (LMRO) an application, docketed as Case
No. LMRO 05-056, for a new CPC to operate MV King
Frederick and two other vessels in several routes including
Matnog, SorsogonAllen, Northern Samar and vice versa.17
Second, on June 6, 2005, LMRO granted the application
of Sta. Clara for a new CPC:
WHEREFORE, upon the foregoing holdings, and finding that
applicant corporation is legally and financially capable to operate
and maintain the proposed service; that the approval of the instant
application will promote public interest and convenience in proper
and suitable manner, this Authority hereby grants applicant
corporation STA. CLARA SHIPPING CORPORATION a
CERTIFICATE

_______________
13 Supra at 1, p. 114.
14 RA 9295, also known as the Domestic Shipping Development Act of 2004,
approved May 3, 2004.
15 Dated November 30, 2004.
16 Rule XVII, Sec. 1 provides: Within six (6) months upon the effectivity of
the IRR, existing liner and tramp operators shall be required to file appropriate
application for issuance of CPC under the Act and this IRR.
17 As cited in the Decision dated June 6, 2005 of the LMRO, Rollo, p. 300.
324

324

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sta. Clara Shipping Corporation vs. San Pablo

OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE (CPC) to operate the vessels MV

KING FREDERICK, MV NELVIN JULES and MV HANSEL
JOBETT for conveyance of passengers and cargoes in the applied
route valid for a period of FIFTEEN (15) YEARS from date hereof,
subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the attached
Certificate of Public Convenience.
This decision takes effect immediately and shall become final,
unless an appeal or a timely motion for reconsideration has been
filed within fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof.
SO ORDERED.18

Yet, on June 24, 2005, Sta. Clara filed a motion for

reconsideration19 of the CA decision without disclosing that
it had obtained a new CPC for MV King Frederick. It was
San Pablo who reported this development to the CA when
she filed a motion to hold Sta. Clara in contempt of court
and to cancel its new CPC.20
On July 27, 2005, the CA issued two resolutions, one
denying Sta. Claras motion for reconsideration,21 and
another granting the motion of San Pablo to cancel the new
CPC issued to Sta. Clara by the LMRO:
WHEREFORE, public respondent Marinas Decision dated June
6, 2005, in so far as it grants private respondent Sta. Clara
Shipping Corporation a Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) to
operate the vessel KING FREDERICK is hereby RESCINDED,
NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. The public respondent Legaspi
Maritime Regional Office (LMRO), through its Regional Director,
Mr. Lucita T. Madarang, is thus ordered to explain why she should
not be cited for contempt for rendering the assailed decision in

LMRO 05-056.
SO ORDERED.22
_______________
18 Id.
19 Rollo, p. 117.
20 Id., at pp. 140-141.
21 Supra at 2.
22 Rollo, p. 154.
325

VOL. 615, March 15, 2010

325

Sta. Clara Shipping Corporation vs. San Pablo

Hence, Santa Clara took the present recourse on the
following grounds:
I.The honorable Court of Appeals gravely and seriously erred
in failing to consider and take judicial notice of the passage of RA
9295 in the resolution of the petition filed before it.
II.The honorable Court of Appeals gravely and seriously erred
in reversing the decision of the honorable MARINA [despite] the
fact that it has become final and executory.
III.The honorable Court of Appeals gravely and seriously erred
in reversing the decision of the honorable MARINA despite the fact
that the decision is in perfect accord with law and jurisprudence.
IV.The honorable Court of Appeals gravely and seriously erred
in nullifying the CPC issued to petitioner pursuant to RA 9295.23

The petition has merit outside of its arguments.

The Court notes that Sta. Clara repeatedly argued in its
pleadings that the January 26, 2004 MARINA decision was
superseded by the June 6, 2005 LMRO decision, and that
the old CPC of MV King Frederick was replaced by a new
CPC issued in accordance with RA 9295 and its
implementing rules.24 San Pablo herself agreed that the
January 26, 2004 MARINA decision was deemed
abandoned when Sta. Clara applied for and obtained a new
CPC.25
There is no dispute then that the January 26, 2004
MARINA decision and the old CPC are now defunct.
The January 26, 2004 MARINA decision and the old
CPC were the subject matter of the petition of San Pablo

before the CA. The reversal of the decision and the

revocation of the CPC were the reliefs sought in that
petition. However, the
_______________
23 Id., at p. 12.
24Petition, Rollo, pp. 25-26; Reply, Rollo, pp. 328-329; Memorandum,
Rollo, pp. 360-361.
25 Memorandum, Rollo, p. 456.
326

326

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sta. Clara Shipping Corporation vs. San Pablo

passage of RA 9295 and the filing by Sta. Clara of an

application for a new CPC under the new law supervened
and rendered the January 26, 2004 MARINA decision and
old CPC of no consequence. There was no more justiciable
controversy for the CA to decide, no remedy to grant or
deny. The petition before the CA had become purely
hypothetical, there being nothing left to act upon.26
Although Sta. Clara filed with the CA a motion for
reconsideration of its May 31, 2005 decision without
disclosing the foregoing developments, by the time the CA
resolved the motion for reconsideration, it was already
aware of the changes in the situation of the parties:
specifically, that Sta. Clara had filed a new application
under RA 9295 and that the LMRO had issued Sta. Clara a
new CPC.27 More significantly, the new CPC issued to Sta.
Clara was now subject to the rules implementing RA 9295.
Under Rule XV, Sec. 1 thereof, 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
CPC.28
Under the altered state of facts, the CA should have
refrained from resolving the pending motions before it and
should have declared the case mooted by supervening
events.29 Besides, questions on the validity of the new CPC
are cognizable by the MARINA Administrator and,
consonant

_______________
26 Rogelio Antalan v. Hon. Aniano Desierto, G.R. No. 152258, 30
November 2006, 509 SCRA 176.
2727Supra at 20.
28 The new CPC is fundamentally different from the old CPC in that
the new expires in 15 years while the old in 5 years; and the new is
issued to the operator or owner while the old was issued to the vessel.
Hence, the new CPC cannot be considered the mere extension of the old
CPC.
29 Mattel, Inc. v. Emma Francisco, G.R. No. 166886, 30 July 2008, 560
SCRA 504. See Felipe Magbanua, et al. v. Rizalino Uy, G.R. No. 161003,
6 May 2005, 458 SCRA 184.
327

VOL. 615, March 15, 2010

327

Sta. Clara Shipping Corporation vs. San Pablo

with the doctrine of primary administrative 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. The CA ought to have given due deference to
the exercise by MARINA of its sound administrative
discretion in applying its special knowledge, experience
and expertise to determine the technical and intricate
factual matters relating to the new CPC of Sta. Clara.30
The Court finds no need to resolve the other issues
raised by San Pablo for they deal with the merits of the
very controversy which supervening events have rendered
merely theoretical. The Court must refrain from even
expressing an opinion on the remaining issues as the
determination thereof would be of no practical use or value,
there being no more justiciable controversy to speak of.31
WHEREFORE, the decision dated May 31, 2005 and
resolutions dated July 27, 2005 of the Court of Appeals are
hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE on the ground of
mootness.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Peralta and Mendoza, JJ.,
concur.
Judgment and resolution annulled and set aside.

Note.The findings of MARINA are to be accorded

great weight since MARINA is the government agency
entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under its
special and technical expertise. (Atienza vs. Court of
Appeals, 495 SCRA 470 [2006]).
o0o
_______________
30 Spouses Edmundo Osea and Ligaya Osea v. Antonio Ambrosio and
Rodolfo Perez, G.R. No. 162774, 7 April 2006, 486 SCRA 599.
31 Josue Engano v. Honorable Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No.
156959, 27 June 2006, 493 SCRA 323.

Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.