Additional cases:1). Addition Hills vs. MegaworldThis is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure of the Decision1 dated May 16, 2006 as well as the Resolution2 dated October 5, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 63439, entitled "ADDITION HILLS MANDALUYONG CIVIC & SOCIAL ORGANIZATION INC. vs. MEGAWORLD PROPERTIES & HOLDINGS, INC., WILFREDO I. IMPERIAL in his capacity as Director, NCR, and HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES." In effect, the appellate court’s issuances reversed and set aside the Decision3 dated September 10, 1998 rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 158 in Civil Case No. 65171.

The facts of this case, as narrated in the assailed May 16, 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals, are as follows:[Private respondent] MEGAWORLD was the registered owner of a parcel of land located along Lee Street, Barangay Addition Hills, Mandaluyong City with an area of 6,148 square meters, more or less, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 12768, issued by the Register of Deeds for Mandaluyong City. Sometime in 1994, [private respondent] MEGAWORLD conceptualized the construction of a residential condominium complex on the said parcel of land called the Wack-Wack Heights Condominium consisting of a cluster of six (6) four-storey buildings and one (1) seventeen (17) storey tower.

[Private respondent] MEGAWORLD thereafter secured the necessary clearances, licenses and permits for the condominium project, including: (1) a CLV, issued on October 25, 1994, and a Development Permit, issued on November 11, 1994, both by the [public respondent] HLURB; (2) an ECC, issued on March 15, 1995, by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR); (3) a Building Permit, issued on February 3, 1995, by the Office of the Building Official of Mandaluyong City; and (4) a Barangay Clearance dated September 29, 1994, from the office of the Barangay Chairman of Addition Hills.

Thereafter, construction of the condominium project began, but on June 30, 1995, the plaintiff-appellee AHMCSO filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 158, docketed as Civil Case No. 65171, for yo (sic) annul the Building Permit, CLV, ECC and Development Permit granted to MEGAWORLD; to prohibit the issuance to MEGAWORLD of Certificate of Registration and License to Sell Condominium Units; and to permanently enjoin local and national building officials from issuing licenses and permits to MEGAWORLD.

On July 20, 1995, [private respondent] MEGAWORLD filed a Motion to Dismiss the case for lack of cause of action and that jurisdiction over the case was with the [public respondent] HLURB and not with the regular courts. On July 24, 1994, the RTC denied the motion to dismiss filed by [private respondent] MEGAWORLD. On August 3, 1995, [private respondent] MEGAWORLD filed its Answer. On November 15, 1995, pre-trial was commenced. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.4

The trial court rendered a Decision dated September 10, 1998 in favor of petitioner, the dispositive portion of which reads:WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Certificate of Locational Viability, the Development Permit and the Certificate of Registration and License to Sell Condominium Units, all issued by defendant Wilfredo I. Imperial, National Capital Region Director of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Boad (HLURB-NCR) are all declared void and of no effect. The same goes for the Building Permit issued by defendant Francisco Mapalo of Mandaluyong City. In turn, defendant Megaworld Properties and Holdings Inc. is directed to rectify its Wack Wack Heights Project for it to conform to the requirements of an R-2 zone of Mandaluyong City and of the Metro Manila Zoning Ordinance 81-01. Costs against these defendants.5

Private respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals which issued the assailed May 16, 2006 Decision which reversed and set aside the aforementioned trial court ruling, the dispositive portion of which reads:WHEREFORE, premises considered, the September 10, 1998 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 158, rendered in Civil Case No. 65171 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one entered DISMISSING the complaint.6

As can be expected, petitioner moved for reconsideration; however, the Court of Appeals denied the motion in its assailed October 5, 2006 Resolution.

Hence, the petitioner filed the instant petition and submitted the following issues for consideration:

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THAT PETITIONER FAILED TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BEFORE SEEKING JUDICIAL INTERVENTION FROM THE COURTS.

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THAT THE CASE FILED BEFORE AND DECIDED BY THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG, BRANCH 158, DOES NOT FALL UNDER ANY ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE ON EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS (The Court) ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THAT PETITIONER FAILED TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BEFORE SEEKING JUDICIAL INTERVENTION FROM THE COURTS.

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS (The Court) ERRED WHEN IT CONCLUDED THAT THE HLURB HAD JURISDICTION OVER ACTIONS TO ANNUL CERTIFICATES OF LOCATIONAL VIABILITY AND DEVELOPMENT PERMITS.7

On the other hand, private respondent put forth the following issues in its Memorandum8:IWHETHER OR NOT THE PETITION FOR REVIEW IS FATALLY DEFECTIVE FOR BEING IMPROPERLY VERIFIED.IIWHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION AND DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT FOR PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.IIIWHETHER OR NOT THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND THE FACTS.

A. WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE CLV WAS IMPROPERLY AND IRREGULARLY ISSUED.

1. WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT HLURB HAS NO POWER TO GRANT AN EXCEPTION OR VARIANCE TO REQUIREMENTS OF METRO MANILA COMMISSION ORDINANCE NO. 81-01.2. WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROJECT DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 3(B), ARTICLE VII OF METRO MANILA COMMISSION ORDINANCE NO. 81-01 TO QUALIFY FOR AN EXCEPTION OR DEVIATION.

B. WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WAS IMPROPERLY AND IRREGULARLY ISSUED.C. WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROJECT DEPRIVES THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES OF AIR.9

We find the petition to be without merit.At the outset, the parties in their various pleadings discuss issues, although ostensibly legal, actually require the Court to make findings of fact. It is long settled, by law and jurisprudence, that the Court is not a trier of facts.10Therefore, the only relevant issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not the remedy sought by the petitioner in the trial court is in violation of the legal principle of the exhaustion of administrative remedies.

We have consistently declared that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is a cornerstone of our judicial system. The thrust of the rule is that courts must allow administrative agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective competence. The rationale for this doctrine is obvious. It entails lesser expenses and provides for the speedier resolution of controversies. Comity and convenience also impel courts of justice to shy away from a dispute until the system of administrative redress has been completed.11

In the case of Republic v. Lacap,12 we expounded on the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the related doctrine of primary jurisdiction in this wise:

The general rule is that before a party may seek the intervention of the court, he should first avail of all the means afforded him by administrative processes. The issues which administrative agencies are authorized to decide should not be summarily taken from them and submitted to a court without first giving such administrative agency the opportunity to dispose of the same after due deliberation.

Corollary to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction; that is, courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that question by the administrative tribunal, where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative

discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.13

It is true that the foregoing doctrine admits of exceptions, such that in Lacap, we also held:Nonetheless, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the corollary doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which are based on sound public policy and practical considerations, are not inflexible rules. There are many accepted exceptions, such as: (a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine; (b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction; (c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant; (d) where the amount involved is relatively small so as to make the rule impractical and oppressive; (e) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice; (f) where judicial intervention is urgent; (g) when its application may cause great and irreparable damage; (h) where the controverted acts violate due process; (i) when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot; (j) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (k) when strong public interest is involved; and, (l) in quo warranto proceedings. x x x.14

Upon careful consideration of the parties’ contentions, we find that none of the aforementioned exceptions exist in the case at bar.

What is apparent, however, is that petitioner unjustifiably failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) before seeking recourse with the trial court. Under the rules of the HLURB which were then in effect, particularly Sections 4 and 6 of HLURB Resolution No. R-391, Series of 1987 (Adopting the 1987 Rules of Procedure of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board),15 a complaint to annul any permit issued by the HLURB may be filed before the Housing and Land Use Arbiter (HLA). Therefore, petitioner’s action to annul the Certificate of Locational Viability (CLV) and the Development Permit issued by the HLURB on October 25, 1994 and November 11, 1994, respectively, in favor of private respondent for its Wack-Wack Heights Condominium Project should have been properly filed before the HLURB instead of the trial court.

We quote with approval the Court of Appeals’ discussion of this matter:In the case at bar, plaintiff-appellee AHMCSO failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention via a petition for annulment. The power to act as appellate body over decisions and actions of local and regional planning and zoning bodies and deputized official of the board was retained by the HLURB and remained unaffected by the devolution under the Local Government Code.

Under Section 5 of Executive Order No. 648, series of 1981, the Human Settlement Regulatory Commission (HSRC) later renamed as Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), pursuant to Section 1(c) of Executive Order No. 90, series of 1986, has the power to:f) Act as the appellate body on decisions and actions of local and regional planning and zoning bodies of the deputized officials of the Commission, on matters arising from the performance of these functions.In fact, Section 4 of E.O. No. 71 affirms the power of the HLURB to review actions of local government units on the issuance of permits –Sec. 4. – If in the course of evaluation of application for registration and licensing of projects within its jurisdiction, HLURB finds that a local government unit has overlooked or mistakenly applied a certain law, rule or standard in issuing a development permit, it shall suspend action with a corresponding advice to the local government concerned, so as to afford it an opportunity to take appropriate action thereon. Such return and advice must likewise be effected within a period of thirty (30) days from receipt by HLURB of the application.

Moreover, Section 18 and 19 of HSRC Administrative Order No. 20 provides:Section 18. Oppossition to Application. Opposition to application shall be considered as a complaint, the resolution of which shall be a prerequisite to any action on the application. Complaints and other legal processes shall be governed by the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, and shall have the effect of suspending the application.Section 19. Complaints/Opposition Filed After the Issuance of Locational Clearance.1âwphi1 Temporary issuance of locational permit or land transaction approval shall be acted upon by the Office that issued the same. Such complaint shall not automatically suspend the locational clearance, temporary use permit, development permit or land transaction approval unless an order issued by the commission to that effect.

The appropriate provisions of the Rules of Procedure governing hearings before the Commission shall be applied in the resolution of said complaint as well as any motion for reconsideration that

may be filed thereto, provided that if the complaint is directed against the certificate of zoning compliance issued by the deputized zoning administrator, the same shall be acted upon the Commissioner in Charge for adjudication.

Under the rules of the HLURB then prevailing at the time this case was filed, a complaint to annul any permit issued by the HLURB may be filed before the Housing and Land Use Arbiter (HLA). The decision of the HLA may be brought to the Board of Commissioners by Petition for Certiorari and the decision of the Board of Commissioners [is] appealable to the Office of the President.16(Citations omitted; emphases supplied.)

It does not escape the attention of the Court that in its Reply, petitioner admitted that it had a pending complaint with the HLURB involving private respondent’s the Development Permit, the Certificate of Registration and License to Sell Condominium Units, aside from complaints with the Building Official of the Municipality (now City) of Mandaluyong and the MMDA, when it instituted its action with the trial court. As discussed earlier, a litigant cannot go around the authority of the concerned administrative agency and directly seek redress from the courts. Thus, when the law provides for a remedy against a certain action of an administrative board, body, or officer, relief to the courts can be made only after exhausting all remedies provided therein. It is settled that the non-observance of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies results in lack of cause of action, which is one of the grounds in the Rules of Court justifying the dismissal of the complaint.17

In view of the foregoing discussion, we find it unnecessary to resolve the other issues raised by the parties.To conclude, it is our view that the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in setting aside the trial court decision and dismissing said complaint.WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision dated May 16, 2006 and the Resolution dated October 5, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 63439 are AFFIRMED.SO ORDERED.

2). Republic vs LacapBefore the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court assailing the Decision1 dated April 28, 2003 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 56345 which affirmed with modification the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, San Fernando, Pampanga (RTC) in Civil Case No. 10538, granting the complaint for Specific Performance and Damages filed by Carlito Lacap (respondent) against the Republic of the Philippines (petitioner).

The factual background of the case is as follows:The District Engineer of Pampanga issued and duly published an "Invitation To Bid" dated January 27, 1992. Respondent, doing business under the name and style Carwin Construction and Construction Supply (Carwin Construction), was pre-qualified together with two other contractors. Since respondent submitted the lowest bid, he was awarded the contract for the concreting of Sitio 5 Bahay Pare.3 On November 4, 1992, a Contract Agreement was executed by respondent and petitioner.4 On September 25, 1992, District Engineer Rafael S. Ponio issued a Notice to Proceed with the concreting of Sitio 5 Bahay Pare.5 Accordingly, respondent undertook the works, made advances for the purchase of the materials and payment for labor costs.6

On October 29, 1992, personnel of the Office of the District Engineer of San Fernando, Pampanga conducted a final inspection of the project and found it 100% completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. Accordingly, the Office of the District Engineer issued Certificates of Final Inspection and Final Acceptance.7

Thereafter, respondent sought to collect payment for the completed project.8 The DPWH prepared the Disbursement Voucher in favor of petitioner.9 However, the DPWH withheld payment from respondent after the District Auditor of the Commission on Audit (COA) disapproved the final release of funds on the ground that the contractor’s license of respondent had expired at the time of the execution of the contract. The District Engineer sought the opinion of the DPWH Legal Department on whether the contracts of Carwin Construction for various Mount Pinatubo rehabilitation projects were valid and effective although its contractor’s license had already expired when the projects were contracted.10

In a Letter-Reply dated September 1, 1993, Cesar D. Mejia, Director III of the DPWH Legal Department opined that since Republic Act No. 4566 (R.A. No. 4566), otherwise known as the Contractor’s License Law, does not provide that a contract entered into after the license has expired is void and there is no law which expressly prohibits or declares void such contract, the

contract is enforceable and payment may be paid, without prejudice to any appropriate administrative liability action that may be imposed on the contractor and the government officials or employees concerned.11

In a Letter dated July 4, 1994, the District Engineer requested clarification from the DPWH Legal Department on whether Carwin Construction should be paid for works accomplished despite an expired contractor’s license at the time the contracts were executed.12

In a First Indorsement dated July 20, 1994, Cesar D. Mejia, Director III of the Legal Department, recommended that payment should be made to Carwin Construction, reiterating his earlier legal opinion.13 Despite such recommendation for payment, no payment was made to respondent.

Thus, on July 3, 1995, respondent filed the complaint for Specific Performance and Damages against petitioner before the RTC.14

On September 14, 1995, petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the complaint states no cause of action and that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the nature of the action since respondent did not appeal to the COA the decision of the District Auditor to disapprove the claim.15

Following the submission of respondent’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss,16 the RTC issued an Order dated March 11, 1996 denying the Motion to Dismiss.17 The OSG filed a Motion for Reconsideration18 but it was likewise denied by the RTC in its Order dated May 23, 1996.19

On August 5, 1996, the OSG filed its Answer invoking the defenses of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies and the doctrine of non-suability of the State.20 Following trial, the RTC rendered on February 19, 1997 its Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing consideration, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, ordering the latter, thru its District Engineer at Sindalan, San Fernando, Pampanga, to pay the following:a) P457,000.00 – representing the contract for the concreting project of Sitio 5 road, Bahay Pare, Candaba, Pampanga plus interest at 12% from demand until fully paid; andb) The costs of suit.SO ORDERED.21

The RTC held that petitioner must be required to pay the contract price since it has accepted the completed project and enjoyed the benefits thereof; to hold otherwise would be to overrun the long standing and consistent pronouncement against enriching oneself at the expense of another.22

Dissatisfied, petitioner filed an appeal with the CA.23 On April 28, 2003, the CA rendered its Decision sustaining the Decision of the RTC. It held that since the case involves the application of the principle of estoppel against the government which is a purely legal question, then the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply; that by its actions the government is estopped from questioning the validity and binding effect of the Contract Agreement with the respondent; that denial of payment to respondent on purely technical grounds after successful completion of the project is not countenanced either by justice or equity.

The CA rendered herein the assailed Decision dated April 28, 2003, the dispositive portion of which reads:WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court is hereby AFFIRMED with modification in that the interest shall be six percent (6%) per annum computed from June 21, 1995. SO ORDERED.24

Hence, the present petition on the following ground:THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT RESPONDENT HAS NO CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST PETITIONER, CONSIDERING THAT:(a) RESPONDENT FAILED TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES; AND(b) IT IS THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT WHICH HAS THE PRIMARY JURISDICTION TO RESOLVE RESPONDENT’S MONEY CLAIM AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.25

Petitioner contends that respondent’s recourse to judicial action was premature since the proper remedy was to appeal the District Auditor’s disapproval of payment to the COA, pursuant to Section 48, Presidential Decree No. 1445 (P.D. No. 1445), otherwise known as the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines; that the COA has primary jurisdiction to resolve respondent’s money claim against the government under Section 2(1),26 Article IX of the 1987 Constitution and Section 2627 of P.D. No. 1445; that non-observance of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the principle of primary jurisdiction results in a lack of cause of action.

Respondent, on the other hand, in his Memorandum28 limited his discussion to Civil Code provisions relating to human relations. He submits that equity demands that he be paid for the work performed; otherwise, the mandate of the Civil Code provisions relating to human relations would be rendered nugatory if the State itself is allowed to ignore and circumvent the standard of behavior it sets for its inhabitants.

The present petition is bereft of merit.The general rule is that before a party may seek the intervention of the court, he should first avail of all the means afforded him by administrative processes.29 The issues which administrative agencies are authorized to decide should not be summarily taken from them and submitted to a court without first giving such administrative agency the opportunity to dispose of the same after due deliberation.30

Corollary to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction; that is, courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that question by the administrative tribunal, where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.31

Nonetheless, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the corollary doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which are based on sound public policy and practical considerations, are not inflexible rules. There are many accepted exceptions, such as: (a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine; (b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction; (c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant; (d) where the amount involved is relatively small so as to make the rule impractical and oppressive; (e) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice;32 (f) where judicial intervention is urgent; (g) when its application may cause great and irreparable damage; (h) where the controverted acts violate due process; (i) when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot;33 (j) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (k) when strong public interest is involved; and, (l) in quo warranto proceedings.34 Exceptions (c) and (e) are applicable to the present case.

Notwithstanding the legal opinions of the DPWH Legal Department rendered in 1993 and 1994 that payment to a contractor with an expired contractor’s license is proper, respondent remained unpaid for the completed work despite repeated demands. Clearly, there was unreasonable delay and official inaction to the great prejudice of respondent.Furthermore, whether a contractor with an expired license at the time of the execution of its contract is entitled to be paid for completed projects, clearly is a pure question of law. It does not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties. There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, and not as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts. 35Said question at best could be resolved only tentatively by the administrative authorities. The final decision on the matter rests not with them but with the courts of justice. Exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply, because nothing of an administrative nature is to be or can be done. 36 The issue does not require technical knowledge and experience but one that would involve the interpretation and application of law.Thus, while it is undisputed that the District Auditor of the COA disapproved respondent’s claim against the Government, and, under Section 4837 of P.D. No. 1445, the administrative remedy available to respondent is an appeal of the denial of his claim by the District Auditor to the COA itself, the Court holds that, in view of exceptions (c) and (e) narrated above, the complaint for specific performance and damages was not prematurely filed and within the jurisdiction of the RTC to resolve, despite the failure to exhaust administrative remedies. As the Court aptly stated in Rocamora v. RTC-Cebu (Branch VIII):38

The plaintiffs were not supposed to hold their breath and wait until the Commission on Audit and the Ministry of Public Highways had acted on the claims for compensation for the lands appropriated by the government. The road had been completed; the Pope had come and gone; but the plaintiffs had yet to be paid for the properties taken from them. Given this official indifference, which apparently would continue indefinitely, the private respondents had to act to assert and protect their interests.39

On the question of whether a contractor with an expired license is entitled to be paid for completed projects, Section 35 of R.A. No. 4566 explicitly provides:SEC. 35. Penalties. Any contractor who, for a price, commission, fee or wage, submits or attempts to submit a bid to construct, or contracts to or undertakes to construct, or assumes charge in a supervisory capacity of a construction work within the purview of this Act, without

first securing a license to engage in the business of contracting in this country; or who shall present or file the license certificate of another, give false evidence of any kind to the Board, or any member thereof in obtaining a certificate or license, impersonate another, or use an expired or revoked certificate or license, shall be deemed guilty of misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than five hundred pesos but not more than five thousand pesos. (Emphasis supplied)

The "plain meaning rule" or verba legis in statutory construction is that if the statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without interpretation.40 This rule derived from the maxim Index animi sermo est (speech is the index of intention) rests on the valid presumption that the words employed by the legislature in a statute correctly express its intention or will and preclude the court from construing it differently. The legislature is presumed to know the meaning of the words, to have used words advisedly, and to have expressed its intent by use of such words as are found in the statute.41 Verba legis non est recedendum, or from the words of a statute there should be no departure.42

The wordings of R.A. No. 4566 are clear. It does not declare, expressly or impliedly, as void contracts entered into by a contractor whose license had already expired. Nonetheless, such contractor is liable for payment of the fine prescribed therein. Thus, respondent should be paid for the projects he completed. Such payment, however, is without prejudice to the payment of the fine prescribed under the law.

Besides, Article 22 of the Civil Code which embodies the maxim Nemo ex alterius incommode debet lecupletari (no man ought to be made rich out of another’s injury) states:Art. 22. Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.This article is part of the chapter of the Civil Code on Human Relations, the provisions of which were formulated as "basic principles to be observed for the rightful relationship between human beings and for the stability of the social order, x x x designed to indicate certain norms that spring from the fountain of good conscience, x x x guides human conduct [that] should run as golden threads through society to the end that law may approach its supreme ideal which is the sway and dominance of justice."43 The rules thereon apply equally well to the Government.44Since respondent had rendered services to the full satisfaction and acceptance by petitioner, then the former should be compensated for them. To allow petitioner to acquire the finished project at no cost would undoubtedly constitute unjust enrichment for the petitioner to the prejudice of respondent. Such unjust enrichment is not allowed by law.WHEREFORE, the present petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 28, 2003 in CA-G.R. CV No. 56345 is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

Lacap but wrong G.R. – 194024Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules

of Civil Procedure assailing the March 17, 2010 Decision[1] and October 7, 2010 Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 110013 entitled “Distinction Properties Development & Construction, Inc. v. Housing Land Use Regulatory Board (NCR), Philip L. Go, Pacifico Q. Lim and Andrew Q. Lim.”Factual and Procedural Antecedents:           Philip L. Go, Pacifico Q. Lim and Andrew Q. Lim (petitioners) are registered individual owners of condominium units in Phoenix Heights Condominium located at H. Javier/Canley Road, Bo. Bagong Ilog, Pasig City, Metro Manila.

Respondent Distinction Properties Development and Construction, Inc. (DPDCI) is a corporation existing under the laws of the Philippines with principal office at No. 1020 Soler Street, Binondo, Manila.  It was incorporated as a real estate developer, engaged in the development of condominium projects, among which was the Phoenix Heights Condominium.                                             

In February 1996, petitioner Pacifico Lim, one of the incorporators and the then president of DPDCI, executed aMaster Deed and Declaration of Restrictions (MDDR)[3] of Phoenix Heights Condominium, which was filed with the Registry of Deeds.  As the developer, DPDCI undertook, among others, the marketing aspect of the project, the sale of the units and the release of flyers and brochures.

 Thereafter, Phoenix Heights Condominium Corporation (PHCC) was formally organized and incorporated. Sometime in 2000, DPDCI turned over to PHCC the ownership and possession of the condominium units, except for the two saleable commercial units/spaces: 

1.                 G/F Level BAS covered by Condominium Certificate of Title (CCT) No. 21030 utilized as the PHCC’s administration office, and 

2.                 G/F Level 4-A covered by CCT No. PT-27396/C-136-II used as living quarters by the building administrator.

Although used by PHCC, DPDCI was assessed association dues for these two units. Meanwhile, in March 1999, petitioner Pacifico Lim, as president of DPDCI, filed

an Application for Alteration of Plan[4] pertaining to the construction of 22 storage units in the spaces adjunct to the parking area of the building.  The application, however, was disapproved as the proposed alteration would obstruct light and ventilation.

 In August 2004, through its Board,[5] PHCC approved a settlement offer from DPDCI for the set-off of the latter’s association dues arrears with the assignment of title over CCT Nos. 21030 and PT-27396/C-136-II and their conversion into common areas.  Thus, CCT Nos. PT-43400 and PT-43399 were issued by the Registrar of Deeds of Pasig City in favor of PHCC in lieu of the old titles.  The said settlement between the two corporations likewise included the reversion of the 22 storage spaces into common areas.  With the conformity of PHCC, DPDCI’s application for alteration (conversion of unconstructed 22 storage units and units GF4-A and BAS from saleable to common areas) was granted by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).[6]

 In August 2008, petitioners, as condominium unit-owners, filed a complaint [7] before the HLURB against DPDCI for unsound business practices and violation of the MDDR.  The case was docketed as REM- 080508-13906. They alleged that DPDCI committed misrepresentation in their circulated flyers and brochures as to the facilities or amenities that would be available in the condominium and failed to perform its obligation to comply with the MDDR.

In defense, DPDCI denied that it had breached its promises and representations to the public concerning the facilities in the condominium. It alleged that the brochure attached to the complaint was “a mere preparatory draft” and not the official one actually distributed to the public, and that the said brochure contained a disclaimer as to the binding effect of the supposed offers therein.  Also, DPDCI questioned the petitioners’ personality to sue as the action was a derivative suit.

 After due hearing, the HLURB rendered its decision[8] in favor of petitioners.  It held as invalid the agreement entered into between DPDCI and PHCC, as to the alteration or conversion of the subject units into common areas, which it previously approved, for the reason that it was not approved by the majority of the members of PHCC as required under Section 13 of the MDDR.  It stated that DPDCI’s defense, that the brochure was a mere draft, was against human experience and a convenient excuse to avoid its obligation to provide the facility of the project.  The HLURB further stated that the case was not a derivative suit but one which involved contracts of sale of the respective units between the complainants and DPDCI, hence, within its jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1, Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 957 (The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers’ Protective Decree), as amended.  The decretal portion of the HLURB decision reads: 

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered: 1.             Ordering respondent to restore/provide proper gym facilities, to

restore the hallway at the mezzanine floor. 2.            Declaring the conversion/alteration of 22 storage units and Units GF4-A and BAS as illegal, and consequently, and ordering respondent to continue paying the condominium dues for these units, with interest and surcharge. 3.            Ordering the Respondent to pay the sum of Php998,190.70, plus

interests and surcharges, as condominium dues in arrears and turnover the administration office to PHCC without any charges pursuant to the representation of the respondent in the brochures it circulated to the public with a corresponding credit to complainants’ individual shares as members of PHCC entitled to such refund or reimbursements. 

4.            Ordering the Respondent to refund to the PHCC the amount of Php1,277,500.00, representing the cost of the deep well, with interests and surcharges with a corresponding credit to complainants’ individual shares as members of PHCC entitled to such refund or reimbursements. 

5.            Ordering the Respondent to pay the complainants moral and exemplary damages in the amount of ₱10,000.00 and attorney’s fees in the amount of ₱10,000.00. 

All other claims and counterclaims are hereby dismissed accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED.[9]

 

Aggrieved, DPDCI filed with the CA its Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition[10] dated August 11, 2009, on the ground that the HLURB decision was a patent nullity constituting an act without or beyond its jurisdiction and that it had no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the course of law.

 On March 17, 2010, the CA rendered the assailed decision which disposed of the case in favor of DPDCI as follows:

 WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is GRANTED.  Accordingly, the assailed Decision of the HLURB in Case No. REM-0800508-13906 is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE and a new one is entered DISMISSING the Complaint a quo. IT IS SO ORDERED.[11]

The CA ruled that the HLURB had no jurisdiction over the complaint filed by petitioners as the controversy did not fall within the scope of the administrative agency’s authority under P.D. No. 957.  The HLURB not only relied heavily on the brochures which, according to the CA, did not set out an enforceable obligation on the part of DPDCI, but also erroneously cited Section 13 of the MDDR to support its finding of contractual violation.  The CA held that jurisdiction over PHCC, an indispensable party, was neither acquired nor waived by estoppel.  Citing Carandang v. Heirs of De Guzman,[12] it held that, in any event, the action should be dismissed because the absence of PHCC, an indispensable party, rendered all subsequent actuations of the court void, for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.  Finally, the CA held that the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies could be relaxed.  Appeal was not a speedy and adequate remedy as jurisdictional questions were continuously raised but ignored by the HLURB.  In the present case, however, “[t]he bottom line is that the challenged decision is one that had been rendered in excess of jurisdiction, if not with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.”[13]

 Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration[14] of the said decision.  The motion, however, was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated October 7, 2010.

 Hence, petitioners interpose the present petition before this Court anchored on the followingGROUNDS

 (1)THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE HLURB HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE INSTANT CASE;(2)            THE COURT OF APPEALS ALSO ERRED IN FINDING THAT PHCC IS AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY WHICH WARRANTED THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE BY REASON OF IT NOT HAVING BEEN IMPLEADED IN THE CASE; (3)THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS LIKEWISE ERRED IN RELAXING THE RULE ON NON-EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BY DECLARING THAT THE APPEAL MAY NOT BE A SPEEDY AND ADEQUATE REMEDY WHEN JURISDICTIONAL QUESTIONS WERE CONTINUOUSLY RAISED BUT IGNORED BY THE HLURB;  and

 (4)THAT FINALLY, THE COURT A QUO ALSO ERRED IN NOT GIVING DUE RESPECT OR EVEN FINALITY TO THE FINDINGS OF THE HLURB.[15] 

Petitioners contend that the HLURB has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case.  Their complaint with the HLURB clearly alleged and demanded specific performance upon DPDCI of the latter’s contractual obligation under their individual contracts to provide a back-up water system as part of the amenities provided for in the brochure, together with an administration office, proper gym facilities, restoration of a hallway, among others. They point out that the violation by DPDCI of its obligations enumerated in the said complaint squarely put their case within the ambit of Section 1, P.D. No. 957, as amended, enumerating the cases that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB.  Likewise, petitioners argue that the case was not a derivative suit as they were not suing for and in behalf of PHCC.   They were suing, in their individual capacities as condominium unit buyers, their developer for breach of contract.  In support of their view that PHCC was not an indispensable party, petitioners even quoted the dispositive portion of the HLURB decision to show that complete relief between or among the existing parties may be obtained without the presence of PHCC as a party to this case.  Petitioners further argue that DPDCI’s petition before the CA should have been dismissed outright for failure to comply with Section 1, Rule XVI of the 2004 Rules of Procedure of the HLURB providing for an appeal to the Board of Commissioners by a party aggrieved by a decision of a regional officer. 

DPDCI, in its Comment,[16] strongly objects to the arguments of petitioners and insists that the CA did not err in granting its petition.  It posits that the HLURB has no jurisdiction over the complaint filed by petitioners because the controversies raised therein are in the nature of “intra-corporate disputes.” Thus, the case does not fall within the jurisdiction of the HLURB under Section 1, P.D. No. 957 and P.D. No. 1344.  According to DPDCI, petitioners sought to address the invalidation of the corporate acts duly entered and executed by PHCC as a corporation of which petitioners are admittedly members of, and not the acts pertaining to their ownership of the units. Such being the case, PHCC should have been impleaded as a party to the

complaint.  Its non-inclusion as an indispensable party warrants the dismissal of the case. DPDCI further avers that the doctrine of exhaustion is inapplicable inasmuch as the issues raised in the petition with the CA are purely legal; that the challenged administrative act is patently illegal; and that the procedure of the HLURB does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy and its application may cause great and irreparable damage.  Finally, it claims that the decision of the HLURB Arbiter has not attained finality, the same having been issued without jurisdiction. 

Essentially, the issues to be resolved are: (1) whether the HLURB has jurisdiction over the complaint filed by the petitioners; (2) whether PHCC is an indispensable party; and (3) whether the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies applies in this case. 

The petition fails. Basic as a hornbook principle is that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is

conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action. The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. [17] Thus, it was ruled that the jurisdiction of the HLURB to hear and decide cases is determined by the nature of the cause of action, the subject matter or property involved and the parties.[18] 

 Generally, the extent to which an administrative agency may exercise its powers depends largely, if not wholly, on the provisions of the statute creating or empowering such agency.[19] With respect to the HLURB, to determine if said agency has jurisdiction over petitioners’ cause of action, an examination of the laws defining the HLURB’s jurisdiction and authority becomes imperative.  P.D. No. 957,[20] specifically Section 3, granted the National Housing Authority (NHA) the "exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the real estate trade and business." Then came P.D. No. 1344[21] expanding the jurisdiction of the NHA (now HLURB), as follows:

SECTION 1.  In the exercise of its functions to regulate the real estate trade and business and in addition to its powers provided for in Presidential Decree No. 957, the National Housing Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the following nature:(a)  Unsound real estate business practices;(b) Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and(c) Cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lot or condominium unit against the owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman.

 This provision must be read in light of the law’s preamble, which explains the reasons

for enactment of the law or the contextual basis for its interpretation. [22]  A statute derives its vitality from the purpose for which it is enacted, and to construe it in a manner that disregards or defeats such purpose is to nullify or destroy the law.[23] P.D. No. 957, as amended, aims to protect innocent subdivision lot and condominium unit buyers against fraudulent real estate practices.[24]

  The HLURB is given a wide latitude in characterizing or categorizing acts which may constitute unsound business practice or breach of contractual obligations in the real estate trade.  This grant of expansive jurisdiction to the HLURB does not mean, however, that all cases involving subdivision lots or condominium units automatically fall under its jurisdiction. The CA aptly quoted the case of Christian General Assembly, Inc. v. Ignacio,[25] wherein the Court held that:

The mere relationship between the parties, i.e., that of being subdivision owner/developer and subdivision lot buyer, does not automatically vest jurisdiction in the HLURB. For an action to fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB, the decisive element is the nature of the action as enumerated in Section 1 of P.D. 1344. On this matter, we have consistently held that the concerned administrative agency, the National Housing Authority (NHA) before and now the HLURB, has jurisdiction over complaints aimed at compelling the subdivision developer to comply with its contractual and statutory obligations.[26] [Emphases supplied]  In this case, the complaint filed by petitioners alleged causes of action that apparently

are not cognizable by the HLURB considering the nature of the action and the reliefs sought.  A

perusal of the complaint discloses that petitioners are actually seeking to nullify and invalidate the duly constituted acts of  PHCC - the April 29, 2005 Agreement[27] entered into by PHCC with DPDCI and its Board Resolution[28] which authorized the acceptance of the proposed offsetting/settlement of DPDCI’s indebtedness and approval of the conversion of certain units from saleable to common areas.  All these wereapproved by the HLURB.  Specifically, the reliefs sought or prayers are the following:

 1.       Ordering the respondent to restore the gym to its original location; 2.      Ordering the respondent to restore the hallway at the second floor; 3.      Declaring the conversion/alteration of 22 storage units and Units GF4-

A and BAS as illegal, and consequently, ordering respondent to continue paying the condominium dues for these units, with interest and surcharge; 

4.      Ordering the respondent to pay the sum of PHP998,190.70, plus interest and surcharges, as condominium dues in arrears and turnover the administration office to PHCC without any charges pursuant to the representation of the respondent in the brochures it circulated to the public; 

5.      Ordering the respondent to refund to the PHCC the amount of PHP1,277,500.00, representing the cost of the deep well, with interests and surcharges; 

6.      Ordering the respondent to pay the complainants moral/exemplary damages in the amount of PHP100,000.00; and 

7.      Ordering the respondent to pay the complainant attorney’s fees in the amount of PHP100,000.00, and PHP3,000.00 for every hearing scheduled by the Honorable Office.[29] 

   As it is clear that the acts being assailed are those of PHHC, this case cannot prosper

for failure to implead the proper party, PHCC.  An indispensable party is defined as one who has such an interest in the controversy

or subject matter that a final adjudication cannot be made, in his absence, without injuring or affecting that interest.[30] In the recent case ofNagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa sa Keihin (NLMK-OLALIA-KMU) v. Keihin Philippines Corporation,[31] the Court had the occasion to state that:

 Under Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, "parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined as plaintiffs or defendants." If there is a failure to implead an indispensable party, any judgment rendered would have no effectiveness. It is "precisely ‘when an indispensable party is not before the court (that) an action should be dismissed.’ The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even to those present." The purpose of the rules on joinder of indispensable parties is a complete determination of all issues not only between the parties themselves, but also as regards other persons who may be affected by the judgment. A decision valid on its face cannot attain real finality where there is want of indispensable parties.[32] (Underscoring supplied)           Similarly, in the case of Plasabas v. Court of Appeals,[33] the Court held that a final decree would necessarily affect the rights of indispensable parties so that the Court could not proceed without their presence.  In support thereof, the Court in Plasabas cited the following authorities, thus: "The general rule with reference to the making of parties in a civil action requires the joinder of all indispensable parties under any and all conditions, their presence being a sine qua non of the exercise of judicial power. (Borlasa v. Polistico, 47 Phil. 345, 348) For this reason, our Supreme Court has held that when it appears of record that there are other persons interested in the subject matter of the litigation, who are not made parties to the action, it is the duty of the court to suspend the trial until such parties are made either plaintiffs or defendants. (Pobre, et al. v. Blanco, 17 Phil. 156). x x x Where the petition failed to join as party defendant the person interested in sustaining the proceeding in the court, the same should be dismissed. x x x When an indispensable party is not before the court, the action should be dismissed. (People, et al. v. Rodriguez, et al., G.R. Nos. L-14059-62, September 30, 1959) (sic)

"Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. (Sec. 7, Rule 3, Rules of Court). The burden of procuring the presence of all indispensable parties is on the plaintiff. (39 Amjur [sic] 885). The evident purpose of the rule is to prevent the multiplicity of suits by requiring the person arresting a right against the defendant to include with him, either as co-plaintiffs or as co-defendants, all persons standing in the same

position, so that the whole matter in dispute may be determined once and for all in one litigation. (Palarca v. Baginsi, 38 Phil. 177, 178). From all indications, PHCC is an indispensable party and should have been impleaded,

either as a plaintiff or as a defendant,[34] in the complaint filed before the HLURB as it would be directly and adversely affected by any determination therein.  To belabor the point, the causes of action, or the acts complained of, were the acts of PHCC as a corporate body. Note that in the judgment rendered by the HLURB, the dispositive portion in particular, DPDCI was ordered (1) to pay ₱998,190.70, plus interests and surcharges, as condominium dues in arrears and turnover the administration office to PHCC; and (2) to refund to PHCC ₱1,277,500.00, representing the cost of the deep well, with interests and surcharges.  Also, the HLURB declared as illegal the agreement regarding the conversion of the 22 storage units and Units GF4-A and BAS, to which agreement PHCC was a party.  Evidently, the cause of action rightfully pertains to PHCC. Petitioners cannot exercise the same except through a derivative suit.  In the complaint, however, there was no allegation that the action was a derivative suit. In fact, in the petition, petitioners claim that their complaint is not a derivative suit. [35]  In the cited case of Chua v. Court of Appeals,[36] the Court ruled:           For a derivative suit to prosper, it is required that the minority stockholder suing for and on behalf of the corporation must allege in his complaint that he is suing on a derivative cause of action on behalf of the corporation and all other stockholders similarly situated who may wish to join him in the suit. It is a condition sine qua non that the corporation be impleaded as a party because not only is the corporation an indispensable party, but it is also the present rule that it must be served with process. The judgment must be made binding upon the corporation in order that the corporation may get the benefit of the suit and may not bring subsequent suit against the same defendants for the same cause of action. In other words, the corporation must be joined as party because it is its cause of action that is being litigated and because judgment must be a res adjudicata against it. (Underscoring supplied)

  Without PHCC as a party, there can be no final adjudication of the HLURB’s judgment.  The CA was, thus, correct in ordering the dismissal of the case for failure to implead an indispensable party.

  To justify its finding of contractual violation, the HLURB cited a provision in the MDDR, to wit:

 Section 13.  Amendment.  After the corporation shall have been created, organized and operating, this MDDR may be amended, in whole or in part, by the affirmative vote of Unit owners constituting at least fifty one (51%) percent of the Unit shares in the Project at a meeting duly called pursuant to the Corporation By Laws and subject to the provisions of the Condominium Act.           This citation, however, is misplaced as the above-quoted provision pertains to the amendment of the MDDR.  It should be stressed that petitioners are not asking for any change or modification in the terms of the MDDR. What they are really praying for is a declaration that the agreement regarding the alteration/conversion is illegal.  Thus, the Court sustains the CA’s finding that:           There was nothing in the records to suggest that DPDCI sought the amendment of a part or the whole of such MDDR.  The cited section is somewhat consistent only with the principle that an amendment of a corporation’s Articles of Incorporation must be assented to by the stockholders holding more than 50% of the shares.  The MDDR does not contemplate, by such provision, that all corporate acts ought to be with the concurrence of a majority of the unit owners.[37]

  Moreover, considering that petitioners, who are members of PHCC, are ultimately challenging the agreement entered into by PHCC with DPDCI, they are assailing, in effect, PHCC’s acts as a body corporate.  This action, therefore, partakes the nature of an “intra-corporate controversy,” the jurisdiction over which used to belong to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), but transferred to the courts of general jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional Trial Court (RTC),pursuant to Section 5b of P.D. No.  902-A,[38] as amended by Section 5.2 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8799.[39]

 An intra-corporate controversy is one which "pertains to any of the following relationships: (1) between the corporation, partnership or association and the public; (2) between the corporation, partnership or association and the State in so far as its franchise, permit or license to operate is concerned; (3) between the corporation, partnership or association and its stockholders, partners, members or officers; and (4) among the stockholders, partners or associates themselves."[40]

 Based on the foregoing definition, there is no doubt that the controversy in this case is essentially intra-corporate in character, for being between a condominium corporation and its members-unit owners.  In the recent case of Chateau De Baie Condominium Corporation v. Sps.

Moreno,[41] an action involving the legality of assessment dues against the condominium owner/developer, the Court held that, the matter being an intra-corporate dispute, the RTC had jurisdiction to hear the same pursuant to R.A. No. 8799.      As to the alleged failure to comply with the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies, the Court again agrees with the position of the CA that the circumstances prevailing in this case warranted a relaxation of the rule.

 The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is a cornerstone of our judicial system. The thrust of the rule is that courts must allow administrative agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective competence.[42]  It has been held, however, that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the doctrine of primary jurisdiction are not ironclad rules.  In the case of Republic of the Philippines v. Lacap,[43] the Court enumerated the numerous exceptions to these rules, namely: (a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine; (b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction;  (c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant; (d) where the amount involved is relatively so small as to make the rule impractical and oppressive; (e) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice; (f) where judicial intervention is urgent; (g) where the application of the doctrine may cause great and irreparable damage; (h) where the controverted acts violate due process; (i) where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot; (j) where there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (k) where strong public interest is involved; and (l) in quo warranto proceedings.[44][Underscoring supplied]  The situations (b) and (e) in the foregoing enumeration obtain in this case.            The challenged decision of the HLURB is patently illegal having been rendered in excess of jurisdiction, if not with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.  Also, the issue on jurisdiction is purely legal which will have to be decided ultimately by a regular court of law.  As the Court wrote in Vigilar v. Aquino:[45]

           It does not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties. There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, and not as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts. Said question at best could be resolved only tentatively by the administrative authorities. The final decision on the matter rests not with them but with the courts of justice. Exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply, because nothing of an administrative nature is to be or can be done. The issue does not require technical knowledge and experience but one that would involve the interpretation and application of law.                    Finally, petitioners faulted the CA in not giving respect and even finality to the findings of fact of the HLURB.  Their reliance on the case of Dangan v. NLRC,[46] reiterating the well-settled principles involving decisions of administrative agencies, deserves scant consideration as the decision of the HLURB in this case is manifestly not supported by law and jurisprudence. Petitioners, therefore, cannot validly invoke DPDCI’s failure to fulfill its obligation on the basis of a plain draft leaflet which petitioners were able to obtain, specifically Pacifico Lim, having been a president of DPDCI.  To accord petitioners the right to demand compliance with the commitment under the said brochure is to allow them to profit by their own act.  This, the Court cannot tolerate. In sum, inasmuch as the HLURB has no jurisdiction over petitioners’ complaint, the Court sustains the subject decision of the CA that the HLURB decision is null and void ab initio. This disposition, however, is without prejudice to any action that the parties may rightfully file in the proper forum. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

3). Quintos vs. NationalIn this case certified to us by a resolution of the Court of Appeals 1 on the ground that the appeal from an order of dismissal by the lower court "is beyond[its] competent jurisdiction ... considering that, as correctly pointed out by defendants-appellees National Stud Farm and its Board of Trustees in their comment ... "what is involved here is a pure legal question", and that is whether or not the lower court erred in dismissing appellant's complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies." 2 Such a principle is, of course, of compelling force in this jurisdiction. 3 But there are exceptions, one of them being the invocation of the due process clause which is precisely the basis from the judicial review sought by plaintiff before the lower court. While his stand was put forth with vigor and plausibility in the memorandum of his counsel, 4 still the point-by-point refutation of his arguments by Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza 5 and deference to controlling principles of administrative law in terms of primary jurisdiction and ripeness of review call for the affirmance of the appealed judgment. So we rule.The basis for the complaint by plaintiff, now appellant, Eduardo Quintos, Jr., before the lower court 6 was set forth therein thus. "2. That Plaintiff is the legitimate owner of a race horse named "King's Toss" which was duly and officially registered on February 17, 1970 with defendant National Stud Farm and which certificate of Registration No. 002426 was issued by said

defendant for said race horse, thereby acknowledging it to participate in horse races and sweepstakes draws that were held and are being held in legally authorized racing, clubs or tracks ...; 3. That the race horse "King's Toss" by virtue of its official registration as such, has since participated or taken part in horse races and sweepstakes draws starting with its debut on March 15, 1970 up to June 11, 1972; 4. That in line with the standard operating procedure and usual racing practices for horse owners to apply for and submit the names of race horses for inclusion in a particular race at least three days, the plaintiff on June 13, 1972 applied for and submitted the name of his race horse "King's Toss" to the defendant Philippine Racing Club, Inc., at Makati, Rizal, for either the races programmed for June 17, or 18, 1972, which application was duly accepted [and] approved by said defendant, consequent to which race horse "King's Toss" was declared eligible to participate [and] take part in the actual race that was conducted on June 17, 1972, more particularly in Race No. 15 thereof, resulting in the inclusion of said race horse in the racing list or program "Lucky Choice" for the scheduled race on June 17, 1972 ...; 5. That on June 17, 1972, the very day when plaintiff's race horse "King's Toss" was scheduled to participate in race No. 15 at the racing tracks of defendant Philippine Racing Club, Inc., an announcement was made through the public address system before the start of Race 13 that plaintiff's race horse "King's Toss" is being scratched or excluded from taking part in Race 15 where it is supposed to run that racing day ... ." 7

It was then alleged that such withdrawal or cancellation of the certificate of registration of plaintiffs race horse was arbitrary and oppressive, due process being denied him in the absence of a formal investigation or inquiry prior thereto. 8 Such actuation was characterized by plaintiff as not only amounting to defendant National Stud Farm and its Board of Trustees gravely abusing its discretion, but also exceeding "its legitimate function and authority [thus resulting in] lack of jurisdiction, ... ." 9 There was an answer filed on behalf of the aforesaid defendants by the Solicitor General wherein the special defenses of immunity from suit as well as the lack of cause of action and the failure to exhaust administrative remedies were interposed. As noted at the outset, the lower court, in its order of October 9, 1972, dismissed the complaint primarily on the ground of lack of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Thus: "The Court is convinced that Quinto's instant complaint was prematurely instituted. His administrative remedy is to ask the Board of Trustees of National Stud Farm to reconsider its resolution cancelling the certificate of registration of "King's Toss" and in case the reconsideration is denied, to appeal to the Games and Amusements Board or to the Office of the President of the Philippines." 10

As noted at the outset, the order of dismissal based on non exhaustion of administrative remedies is invulnerable to attack. We therefore affirm.1. Plaintiff is not unaware of the impress of authoritativeness affixed to the basic principle of administrative remedies having to be fully utilized before resort to courts is allowable. Nonetheless, he would seek its operation in the case at hand by the invocation of the alleged denial of due process. It is to be admitted that under certain circumstances, such a plea would not go unheeded because of the inadequacy of the remedy that could be supplied administratively. Before its invocation, however, is to be accorded a degree of plausibility, it must first be ascertained whether from the standpoint of what still could be done by the higher authorities in the Executive branch, plaintiff would really have a valid cause for complaint. The Solicitor General, in his comment certainly disputed such a claim. He would hit a grave inaccuracy in the allegation that there was lack of notice of the investigation conducted by defendant National Stud Farm, there being two letters requiring him to answer the complaint of a certain Mr. Elwick Jr. sent to him, one by regular mail on December 18, 1970 and the other by registered mail on February 5, 1971. With the presumption that the sending thereof ordinarily is followed by their receipt, the assertion, as he pointed out, was far from persuasive. 11 Plaintiff, moreover, did know of the cancellation of the registration papers of his race horse on June 17, 1970, but he next moved for a reconsideration thereof prior to his going to court on June 21 of that year. 12 Even without according due weight to the allegation that protection of public interest did require such cancellation, a step that can be taken without a hearing, the additional argument offered in such comment as to the exhaustion of administrative remedies not being procedurally impossible does commend itself for approval thus: "Appellant's allegation that he could not have appealed to the Executive Secretary at the time he filed his complaint in the lower court on June 21, 1972 is also inaccurate. There is no question that on June 17, 1972, appellant already had knowledge of the revocation of the certificate of registration of his race horse. This is admitted in paragraph 5 of, the Complaint of appellant, ... . Despite this knowledge on June 17, 1972, appellant did not appeal the resolution in question to the Executive Secretary. Instead he premature instituted a suit in court for damages. The reason for this short circuiting of administrative processes is not explained by appellant. He gives no reason for his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Indeed there is none." 13 The order of dismissal therefore, cannot considered as being in derrogation of the due process guarantee.

2. What further lends support to the decision now on appeal is that the failure to apply such a basic concept as exhaustion of administrative remedies would be attended with consequences adverse to such equally well-settled postulates in administrative law of primary jurisdiction and ripeness of review. It is true that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction 14 or prior resort 15 goes no further than to determine whether it is the court or the agency that should make the initial decision. 16 Parker, in his text, would put the matter thus: "The fact that a governmental authority is empowered to deal with a given type of matter gives rise to a presumption that it has exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. If the law delegates A to make decisions this means that in dubio B is not so delegated." 17 Davis clarifies the point in this wise: "The precise function of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide a court in determining whether the court should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has determined some question or some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the court." 18 The important thing is that the dispute be determined according to the judgment, in the language of an American Supreme Court decision, "of a tribunal appointed by law and informed by experience." 19 In this particular case, as pointed out by the Solicitor General even prior to the Executive Secretary, the question could have been resolved in a manner satisfactory to the parties if the Games and Amusements Board which certainly had the necessary qualifications to view its manifold aspects were appealed to. When, therefore, as was likewise adverted to by the Solicitor General, the judicial forum was sought by plaintiff, there was in effect an unwarranted disregard of the concept of primary jurisdiction. In the traditional language of administrative law, the stage of ripeness for judicial review had not been reached. 20 As so well put by another authoritative treatise writer, Jaffe, that would be to ignore factors not predetermined "by formula but by seasoned balancing [thereof] for and against the assumption of jurisdiction." 21All that had been said so far would seem to indicate that under such a test, the lower court's insistence on the observance of the fundamental requirement of exhausting administrative remedies is more than justified. WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal of the lower court of October 9, 1972 is affirmed. With costs against plaintiff-appellant.

4). Ang Tibay vs CIRThe Solicitor-General in behalf of the respondent Court of Industrial Relations in the above-entitled case has filed a motion for reconsideration and moves that, for the reasons stated in his motion, we reconsider the following legal conclusions of the majority opinion of this Court:

1. Que un contrato de trabajo, asi individual como colectivo, sin termino fijo de duracion o que no sea para una determinada, termina o bien por voluntad de cualquiera de las partes o cada vez que ilega el plazo fijado para el pago de los salarios segun costumbre en la localidad o cunado se termine la obra;2. Que los obreros de una empresa fabril, que han celebrado contrato, ya individual ya colectivamente, con ell, sin tiempo fijo, y que se han visto obligados a cesar en sus tarbajos por haberse declarando paro forzoso en la fabrica en la cual tarbajan, dejan de ser empleados u obreros de la misma;3. Que un patrono o sociedad que ha celebrado un contrato colectivo de trabajo con sus osbreros sin tiempo fijo de duracion y sin ser para una obra determiminada y que se niega a readmitir a dichos obreros que cesaron como consecuencia de un paro forzoso, no es culpable de practica injusta in incurre en la sancion penal del articulo 5 de la Ley No. 213 del Commonwealth, aunque su negativa a readmitir se deba a que dichos obreros pertenecen a un determinado organismo obrero, puesto que tales ya han dejado deser empleados suyos por terminacion del contrato en virtud del paro.

The respondent National Labor Union, Inc., on the other hand, prays for the vacation of the judgement rendered by the majority of this Court and the remanding of the case to the Court of Industrial Relations for a new trial, and avers:

1. That Toribio Teodoro's claim that on September 26, 1938, there was shortage of leather soles in ANG TIBAY making it necessary for him to temporarily lay off the members of the National Labor Union Inc., is entirely false and unsupported by the records of the Bureau of Customs and the Books of Accounts of native dealers in leather.2. That the supposed lack of leather materials claimed by Toribio Teodoro was but a scheme to systematically prevent the forfeiture of this bond despite the breach of his CONTRACT with the Philippine Army.3. That Toribio Teodoro's letter to the Philippine Army dated September 29, 1938, (re supposed delay of leather soles from the States) was but a scheme to systematically prevent the forfeiture of this bond despite the breach of his CONTRACT with the Philippine Army.4. That the National Worker's Brotherhood of ANG TIBAY is a company or employer union dominated by Toribio Teodoro, the existence and functions of which are illegal. (281 U.S., 548, petitioner's printed memorandum, p. 25.)

5. That in the exercise by the laborers of their rights to collective bargaining, majority rule and elective representation are highly essential and indispensable. (Sections 2 and 5, Commonwealth Act No. 213.)6. That the century provisions of the Civil Code which had been (the) principal source of dissensions and continuous civil war in Spain cannot and should not be made applicable in interpreting and applying the salutary provisions of a modern labor legislation of American origin where the industrial peace has always been the rule.7. That the employer Toribio Teodoro was guilty of unfair labor practice for discriminating against the National Labor Union, Inc., and unjustly favoring the National Workers' Brotherhood.8. That the exhibits hereto attached are so inaccessible to the respondents that even with the exercise of due diligence they could not be expected to have obtained them and offered as evidence in the Court of Industrial Relations.9. That the attached documents and exhibits are of such far-reaching importance and effect that their admission would necessarily mean the modification and reversal of the judgment rendered herein.

The petitioner, Ang Tibay, has filed an opposition both to the motion for reconsideration of the respondent National Labor Union, Inc.In view of the conclusion reached by us and to be herein after stead with reference to the motion for a new trial of the respondent National Labor Union, Inc., we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to pass upon the motion for reconsideration of the Solicitor-General. We shall proceed to dispose of the motion for new trial of the respondent labor union. Before doing this, however, we deem it necessary, in the interest of orderly procedure in cases of this nature, in interest of orderly procedure in cases of this nature, to make several observations regarding the nature of the powers of the Court of Industrial Relations and emphasize certain guiding principles which should be observed in the trial of cases brought before it. We have re-examined the entire record of the proceedings had before the Court of Industrial Relations in this case, and we have found no substantial evidence that the exclusion of the 89 laborers here was due to their union affiliation or activity. The whole transcript taken contains what transpired during the hearing and is more of a record of contradictory and conflicting statements of opposing counsel, with sporadic conclusion drawn to suit their own views. It is evident that these statements and expressions of views of counsel have no evidentiary value.

The Court of Industrial Relations is a special court whose functions are specifically stated in the law of its creation (Commonwealth Act No. 103). It is more an administrative than a part of the integrated judicial system of the nation. It is not intended to be a mere receptive organ of the Government. Unlike a court of justice which is essentially passive, acting only when its jurisdiction is invoked and deciding only cases that are presented to it by the parties litigant, the function of the Court of Industrial Relations, as will appear from perusal of its organic law, is more active, affirmative and dynamic. It not only exercises judicial or quasi-judicial functions in the determination of disputes between employers and employees but its functions in the determination of disputes between employers and employees but its functions are far more comprehensive and expensive. It has jurisdiction over the entire Philippines, to consider, investigate, decide, and settle any question, matter controversy or dispute arising between, and/or affecting employers and employees or laborers, and regulate the relations between them, subject to, and in accordance with, the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 103 (section 1). It shall take cognizance or purposes of prevention, arbitration, decision and settlement, of any industrial or agricultural dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout, arising from differences as regards wages, shares or compensation, hours of labor or conditions of tenancy or employment, between landlords and tenants or farm-laborers, provided that the number of employees, laborers or tenants of farm-laborers involved exceeds thirty, and such industrial or agricultural dispute is submitted to the Court by the Secretary of Labor or by any or both of the parties to the controversy and certified by the Secretary of labor as existing and proper to be by the Secretary of Labor as existing and proper to be dealth with by the Court for the sake of public interest. (Section 4, ibid.) It shall, before hearing the dispute and in the course of such hearing, endeavor to reconcile the parties and induce them to settle the dispute by amicable agreement. (Paragraph 2, section 4, ibid.) When directed by the President of the Philippines, it shall investigate and study all industries established in a designated locality, with a view to determinating the necessity and fairness of fixing and adopting for such industry or locality a minimum wage or share of laborers or tenants, or a maximum "canon" or rental to be paid by the "inquilinos" or tenants or less to landowners. (Section 5, ibid.) In fine, it may appeal to voluntary arbitration in the settlement of industrial disputes; may employ mediation or conciliation for that purpose, or recur to the more effective system of official investigation and compulsory arbitration in order to determine specific controversies between labor and capital industry and in agriculture. There is in reality here a mingling of executive and judicial functions, which is a departure from the rigid doctrine of the separation of governmental powers.

In the case of Goseco vs. Court of Industrial Relations et al., G.R. No. 46673, promulgated September 13, 1939, we had occasion to joint out that the Court of Industrial Relations et al., G. R. No. 46673, promulgated September 13, 1939, we had occasion to point out that the Court of Industrial Relations is not narrowly constrained by technical rules of procedure, and the Act requires it to "act according to justice and equity and substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities or legal forms and shall not be bound by any technicalities or legal forms and shall not be bound by any technical rules of legal evidence but may inform its mind in such manner as it may deem just and equitable." (Section 20, Commonwealth Act No. 103.) It shall not be restricted to the specific relief claimed or demands made by the parties to the industrial or agricultural dispute, but may include in the award, order or decision any matter or determination which may be deemed necessary or expedient for the purpose of settling the dispute or of preventing further industrial or agricultural disputes. (section 13, ibid.) And in the light of this legislative policy, appeals to this Court have been especially regulated by the rules recently promulgated by the rules recently promulgated by this Court to carry into the effect the avowed legislative purpose. The fact, however, that the Court of Industrial Relations may be said to be free from the rigidity of certain procedural requirements does not mean that it can, in justifiable cases before it, entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due process in trials and investigations of an administrative character. There are primary rights which must be respected even in proceedings of this character:

(1) The first of these rights is the right to a hearing, which includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof. In the language of Chief Hughes, in Morgan v. U.S., 304 U.S. 1, 58 S. Ct. 773, 999, 82 Law. ed. 1129, "the liberty and property of the citizen shall be protected by the rudimentary requirements of fair play.

(2) Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented. (Chief Justice Hughes in Morgan v. U.S. 298 U.S. 468, 56 S. Ct. 906, 80 law. ed. 1288.) In the language of this court inEdwards vs. McCoy, 22 Phil., 598, "the right to adduce evidence, without the corresponding duty on the part of the board to consider it, is vain. Such right is conspicuously futile if the person or persons to whom the evidence is presented can thrust it aside without notice or consideration."

(3) "While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to decide right, it does imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely, that of having something to support it is a nullity, a place when directly attached." (Edwards vs. McCoy, supra.) This principle emanates from the more fundamental is contrary to the vesting of unlimited power anywhere. Law is both a grant and a limitation upon power.

(4) Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion (City of Manila vs. Agustin, G.R. No. 45844, promulgated November 29, 1937, XXXVI O. G. 1335), but the evidence must be "substantial." (Washington, Virginia and Maryland Coach Co. v. national labor Relations Board, 301 U.S. 142, 147, 57 S. Ct. 648, 650, 81 Law. ed. 965.) It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind accept as adequate to support a conclusion." (Appalachian Electric Power v. National Labor Relations Board, 4 Cir., 93 F. 2d 985, 989; National Labor Relations Board v. Thompson Products, 6 Cir., 97 F. 2d 13, 15; Ballston-Stillwater Knitting Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 2 Cir., 98 F. 2d 758, 760.) . . . The statute provides that "the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity shall not be controlling.' The obvious purpose of this and similar provisions is to free administrative boards from the compulsion of technical rules so that the mere admission of matter which would be deemed incompetent inn judicial proceedings would not invalidate the administrative order. (Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baird, 194 U.S. 25, 44, 24 S. Ct. 563, 568, 48 Law. ed. 860; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Louisville and Nashville R. Co., 227 U.S. 88, 93 33 S. Ct. 185, 187, 57 Law. ed. 431; United States v. Abilene and Southern Ry. Co. S. Ct. 220, 225, 74 Law. ed. 624.) But this assurance of a desirable flexibility in administrative procedure does not go far as to justify orders without a basis in evidence having rational probative force. Mere uncorroborated hearsay or rumor does not constitute substantial evidence. (Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 59 S. Ct. 206, 83 Law. ed. No. 4, Adv. Op., p. 131.)"

(5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected. (Interstate Commence Commission vs. L. & N. R. Co., 227 U.S. 88, 33 S. Ct. 185, 57 Law. ed.

431.) Only by confining the administrative tribunal to the evidence disclosed to the parties, can the latter be protected in their right to know and meet the case against them. It should not, however, detract from their duty actively to see that the law is enforced, and for that purpose, to use the authorized legal methods of securing evidence and informing itself of facts material and relevant to the controversy. Boards of inquiry may be appointed for the purpose of investigating and determining the facts in any given case, but their report and decision are only advisory. (Section 9, Commonwealth Act No. 103.) The Court of Industrial Relations may refer any industrial or agricultural dispute or any matter under its consideration or advisement to a local board of inquiry, a provincial fiscal. a justice of the peace or any public official in any part of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation, and may delegate to such board or public official such powers and functions as the said Court of Industrial Relations may deem necessary, but such delegation shall not affect the exercise of the Court itself of any of its powers. (Section 10, ibid.)

(6) The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges, therefore, must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision. It may be that the volume of work is such that it is literally Relations personally to decide all controversies coming before them. In the United States the difficulty is solved with the enactment of statutory authority authorizing examiners or other subordinates to render final decision, with the right to appeal to board or commission, but in our case there is no such statutory authority.

(7) The Court of Industrial Relations should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decision rendered. The performance of this duty is inseparable from the authority conferred upon it.

In the right of the foregoing fundamental principles, it is sufficient to observe here that, except as to the alleged agreement between the Ang Tibay and the National Worker's Brotherhood (appendix A), the record is barren and does not satisfy the thirst for a factual basis upon which to predicate, in a national way, a conclusion of law.This result, however, does not now preclude the concession of a new trial prayed for the by respondent National Labor Union, Inc., it is alleged that "the supposed lack of material claimed by Toribio Teodoro was but a scheme adopted to systematically discharged all the members of the National Labor Union Inc., from work" and this avernment is desired to be proved by the petitioner with the "records of the Bureau of Customs and the Books of Accounts of native dealers in leather"; that "the National Workers Brotherhood Union of Ang Tibay is a company or employer union dominated by Toribio Teodoro, the existence and functions of which are illegal." Petitioner further alleges under oath that the exhibits attached to the petition to prove his substantial avernments" are so inaccessible to the respondents that even within the exercise of due diligence they could not be expected to have obtained them and offered as evidence in the Court of Industrial Relations", and that the documents attached to the petition "are of such far reaching importance and effect that their admission would necessarily mean the modification and reversal of the judgment rendered herein." We have considered the reply of Ang Tibay and its arguments against the petition. By and large, after considerable discussions, we have come to the conclusion that the interest of justice would be better served if the movant is given opportunity to present at the hearing the documents referred to in his motion and such other evidence as may be relevant to the main issue involved. The legislation which created the Court of Industrial Relations and under which it acts is new. The failure to grasp the fundamental issue involved is not entirely attributable to the parties adversely affected by the result. Accordingly, the motion for a new trial should be and the same is hereby granted, and the entire record of this case shall be remanded to the Court of Industrial Relations, with instruction that it reopen the case, receive all such evidence as may be relevant and otherwise proceed in accordance with the requirements set forth hereinabove. So ordered.