Energy Regulatory Board v.

CA Facts: Petitioner Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation filed with the Bureau of Energy Utilization (BEU) an application for authority to relocate its Shell Service Station at Tambo, Paraaque, Metro Manila, to Imelda Marcos Avenue of the same municipality. Private respondent Petroleum Distributors and Service Corporation (PDSC) filed an opposition to the application on the grounds that: 1.] There are adequate service stations attending to the motorists' requirements in the trading area covered by the application; 2.] ruinous competition will result from the establishment of the proposed new service station; and 3.] there is a decline not an increase in the volume of sales in the area. The BEU denied Shell's application on a finding that there was "no necessity for an additional petroleum products retail outlet in Imelda Marcos Avenue, Paraaque". Dissatisfied, Shell appealed to the Office of Energy Affairs (OEA). The OEA likewise denied the appeal of Shell and affirmed the BEU decision. Shell moved for reconsideration and prayed for a new hearing or the remand of the case for further proceedings. The OEA remanded the case to the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB). The ERB rendered a Decision allowing Shell to establish the service station in Benigno Aquino, Jr. Avenue, Paraaque, Metro Manila. Aggrieved, private respondent PDSC elevated its cause to the Court of Appeals which reversed and set aside the decision of the ERB. Dissatisfied, both Shell and ERB elevated the matter to the Supreme Court. ERB contended that the evidence presented by applicant Shell regarding vehicle volume and fuel demand supports the construction of the proposed outlet and will not lead to ruinous competition. For its part, Shell avered that respondent appellate court should not have passed judgment on purely economic and policy issues regarding the petroleum business which are within the realm of the Energy Regulatory Board which has a recognized expertise in oil economics. Issue: Whether it was proper for the CA to review the decision of the ERB Held: No. The power to determine whether the building of a gasoline retail outlet in a trading area would benefit public interest and the oil industry lies with the ERB not the appellate courts. The interpretation of an administrative government agency like the ERB, which is tasked to implement a statute, is accorded great respect and ordinarily controls the construction of the courts because when an administrative agency renders an opinion or issues a statement of policy, it merely interprets a pre-existing law and the administrative interpretation is at best advisory for it is the courts that finally determine what the law means. Thus, an action by an administrative agency may be set aside by the judicial department if there is an error of law, abuse of power, lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with the letter and spirit of the law. In case at bar, the Court found no cogent reason to depart from the general rule because the findings of the ERB conform to, rather than conflict with, the governing statutes and controlling case law on the matter. Petitioner ERB is in a better position to resolve petitioner Shell's application, being primarily the agency possessing the necessary expertise on the matter.

Regino v. Pangasinan Colleges of Science & Technology Facts: PCST held a fund raising campaign where each student was required to pay for two tickets at the price of P100 each. The project was allegedly implemented by recompensing students who purchased tickets with additional points in their test scores; those who refused to pay were denied the opportunity to take the final examinations. Financially strapped and prohibited by her religion from attending dance parties and celebrations, Regino refused to pay for the tickets. On the scheduled dates of the final examinations in logic and statistics, her teachers Respondents. Gamurot and Baladad allegedly disallowed her from taking the tests. According to petitioner, Gamurot made her sit out her logic class while her classmates were taking their examinations. The next day, Baladad, after announcing to the entire class that she was not permitting petitioner and another student to take their statistics examinations for failing to pay for their tickets, allegedly ejected them from the classroom. Petitioner's pleas ostensibly went unheeded by Gamurot and Baladad, who unrelentingly defended their positions as compliance with PCST's policy. Petitioner filed, as a pauper litigant, a Complaint for damages against PCST, Gamurot and Baladad. Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of petitioner's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. According to respondents, the question raised involved the determination of the wisdom of an administrative policy of the PCST; hence, the case should have been initiated before the proper administrative body, the Commission of Higher Education (CHED). The RTC dismissed the Complaint for lack of cause of action. Aggrieved, petitioner filed the present Petition on pure questions of law. Issue: Whether the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is applicable Held: No. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies has no application where a student is not asking for the reversal of the policies of an educational institution nor demanding that she be allowed to take the final examinations that she was prevented from taking (she was already enrolled in another educational institution) but is praying for damages. A reversal of the acts complained of would not adequately redress her grievances. Under the circumstances, the consequences of respondents acts could no longer be undone or rectified. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is applicable when there is competence on the part of the administrative body to act upon the matter complained of. Administrative agencies are not courts; they are neither part of the judicial system, nor are they deemed judicial tribunals. Specifically, the CHED does not have the power to award damages. Hence, petitioner could not have commenced her case before the Commission. One of the exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine is when the issue is purely legal & well within the jurisdiction of the trial court --- an action for damages inevitably calls for the application & interpretation of the Civil Code.