OPORTO V. MEMBERS OF BOARD OF INQUIRY AND SICIPLINE OF NAPOCOR (EXHAUSTION OF ADMIN REMEDIES, FORUM SHOPPING)

Oporto failed to exhaust administrative remedies.

The DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES mandates that whenever there is an available administrative remedy provided by law, no judicial recourse can be made until all such remedies have been availed of and exhausted. This rule is based on the practical principle that the administrative agency should be given a chance to correct its error and that relief first sought from a superior administrative agency could render court action unnecessary.

In this case, Oporto appealed the decision of the NAPOCOR President to DOE Secretary. Obviously, he was under the impression that the Secretary had administrative appellate authority over NAPOCOR President's decision. but without waiting for the Secretary's action, Oporto filed with the RTC a petition for prohibition under Rule 65. In so doing, Oporto compounded an earlier error with yet another blunder, namely, forum shopping.

By going to the court without awaiting the action of the Secretary, whom he recognized as a superior administrative authority, Oporto violated the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Oporto committed forum shopping.

In yet another display of flawed logic, Oporto insists that he had been denied due process - an exception to the doctrine of exhaustion - and if indeed, the DOE Secretary is not the proper forum for an appeal, then the appeal should be deemed as not having been filed at all. Thus, Oporto argues, there would be no incidence of forum shopping.

There is FORUM SHOPPING when the following elements concur:

1. Identity of the parties, or at least, of the parties who represent the same interest in both actions;
2. Identity of the rights asserted and relief prayed for, as the latter is founded on the same set of facts; and
3. Identity of the two preceding particulars such that any judgment rendered in the other action will amount to res judicata in the action under consideration or will constitute litis pendentia.

The filing of the petition for prohibition with the RTC while the appeal with the DOE Secretary was yet unresolved is unmistakably a case of forum shopping, as it yielded the full concurrence of all the three elements enumerated above.

Due process is not a mantra, the mere invocation of which shall warrant a reversal of a decision. Well-settled is the rule that the essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.

Oporto was not deprived of due process in this case as he had in fact filed his answer ans a Joint Position Paper explaining to the Board the reasons for the discrepancy of the inspection and delivery date. He was likewise able to file a Motion for Reconsideration of the NAPOCOR President's decision. It should be emphasized that despite the opportunity to do so, Oporto did not present any new substantial defense other than to say that the alleged error was not his own doing and that it was a simple case of oversight.