Heirs of Roxas v. IAC (G.R. No. 67195, May 29, 1989)

 Facts:

Heirs of Eugenia V. Roxas (HEVR) seeks to nullify MJBFS' license to operate the restaurant in the Hidden Valley Springs Resort and to prohibit the DOT from issuing any other license to respondent Guillermo Roxas. The function of the writ of prohibition is to prevent the doing of some act that is about to be done. It is not intended to provide a remedy for acts already accomplished. 

Public respondents argued that no grave abuse of discretion was committed by them because under the "Rules and Regulations Governing the Business and Operation of all Restaurants in the Philippines", MJBFS was not required to submit a contract of lease or written permit from the petitioner, the restaurant owner, allowing the former to operate the latter's restaurant. Moreover, they contend that the issuance of the license in favor of MJBFS was predicated on the favorable recommendation of a DOT Team of Inspectors that evaluated MJBFS’ application and inspected the premises of the subject restaurant in accordance with Section 8, Chapter IV of the rules and regulations on restaurants. Public respondents likewise contend that Section 21, Chapter IV of the rules and regulations on resorts was inapplicable because Valley Resort Corporation does not "own and operate" the subject restaurant, therefore it cannot be deemed licensed to operate the same by virtue of its resort license alone. And inasmuch as no previous license had been issued to petitioner or Valley Resort Corporation to operate the subject restaurant, and in fact no party was operating the restaurant pending the approval of the application of Guillermo Roxas and/or MJBFS, no grave abuse of discretion attended the issuance of a restaurant license in favor of the latter.

Issue: Whether or not the SC can determine whether or not CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.

Held:

YES. It is a recognized principle that courts of justice will generally not interfere in executive and administrative matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies, such as, the grant of licenses, permits, leases, or the approval, rejection, or revocation of applications therefor. However, there is a limit to the deference accorded by the courts to the actions of such agencies. Jurisprudence is replete with cases wherein the Supreme Court expounded on the exception to the general rule.

The general rule will not apply when the board of official:

1. gone beyond their statutory authority
2. exercised unconstitutional power
3. clearly acted arbitrarily and without regard to his duty with grave abuse of discretion

In the instant case, petitioner contends that public respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the contested restaurant license despite the failure of Guillermo Roxas and/or MJBFS to satisfy the conditions mandated by the "Rules and Regulations governing the Business and Operations of All Resorts in the Philippines," such as, the submission of a contract of lease or written permit from the petitioner as resort and restaurant owner allowing MJBFS to operate the subject restaurant. Petitioner further contends that pursuant to Section 21, Chapter IV of the rules and regulations on resorts, Valley Resort Corporation as lessee and holder of the license to operate the resort must be deemed licensed to operate the subject restaurant.

Hence, the license issued to HVABR is NULLIFIED.