G.R. No. 114711 February 13, 1997 GARMENTS and TEXTILE EXPORT OAR! "GTE #, petitioner, vs.

$O%RT OF APPEALS and AMERI$AN INTER&FAS'ION $ORPORATION, respondents. G.R. No. 11())9 February 13, 1997 AMERI$AN INTER&FAS'ION $ORPORATION, petitioner, vs. GLORIO%S S%N FAS'ION GARMENTS MAN%FA$T%RING "P'ILS.#, IN$. and GARMENTS and TEXTILE EXPORT OAR! "GTE #, respondents.

'ERMOSISIMA, *R., J.: The doctrine of "primary jurisdiction" of Government administrative agencies has herein come into play. Should courts of justice interfere with their purely administrative and discretionary functions and have supervisory powers over their proceedings and actions involving the exercise of judgment and findings of fact? Verily, over matters falling under their jurisdiction, we have repeatedly held that administrative agencies are in a etter position to pass judgment thereon and their findings of fact in that regard are generally accorded respect, if not finality, y the courts. 1 !n this connection, the Garments and Textile "xport #oard $GT"#% filed the herein petition for Certiorari from the &anuary '(, ())* +ecision and the ,arch '', ())* -esolution of the .ourt of /ppeals in ./0G.-. S1 2o. 3(4)5 $G.-. 2o. ((*6((%. 7p for our resolution li8ewise is the petition for Certiorari filed y the /merican !nter0 9ashion .orporation $/!9.% against the GT"# -esolution of &une '(, ())* $G.-. 2o. ((4::)%. These petitions, eing interrelated, were ordered consolidated. /ntecedent facts to set us on a proper perspective are those lucidly set out y the .ourt of /ppeals;
1etitioner /merican !nter09ashion .orporation $/!9.% was a corporation organi<ed under 1hilippine =aws engaged in the usiness of manufacturing and exporting garments. 1rior to its incorporation, the original incorporators of /!9. were awarded the initial export >uota $"?% allocation y virtue of the resolution of the Garments @ "xport Textile #oard $GT"#% dated &uly 3A, ():*. #efore /!9.Bs incorporation, Glorious Sun, a corporation organi<ed under 1hilippine =aws sometime in ()66, was a recipient of a su stantial num er of "? allocations from the GT"#. Cn /pril '6, ():*, Glorious Sun was charged efore the GT"# in CS. 2o. :*0#0( with, and was found guilty of, misdeclaration of values of its imported raw materials resulting in dollar salting, and other related frauds, in connection with its importations in ():3. /s a result, the "?s of Glorious Sun as well as its license to operate a onded manufacturing warehouse were cancelled and its stoc8holders and officers were dis>ualified from engaging in garment exports. !ts export >uotas were thereafter given to two newly0formed corporations D the +e

Soleil /pparel ,anufacturing .orporation $+e Soleil% and the herein petitioner /merican !nter09ashion .orporation $/!9.%. These corporations were joint ventures of Eong8ong investors and majority stoc8holders of Glorious Sun on one hand and, allegedly, one mem er of the family and one crony of 1resident ,arcos on the other $/merican !nter09ashion .orp. vs. Cffice of the 1resident, ()6 S.-/ *A), *(3 @ *(* F())(G%. The cancelled "?s of Glorious Sun which were given to /!9. pertains to those under .at 3*6H: e>uivalent to ((3,3*(03 do<ens which are the su ject of dispute etween GT"# and petitioner. Glorious Sun continues to claim its rights over the aforementioned "?. !n the meantime, /!9. was a le to maintain its "? from ():* up to the time of the filing of this petition $except for a rief period etween ():5 and ():) when /!9. was placed under se>uestration% y continuously exporting or shipping out at least )4I of its current allocation as re>uired y the rules and regulations of the GT"#. This fact was not denied y the respondents. Jith the esta lishment of a new government in ():5, Glorious Sun, on Septem er 6, ():), filed an appeal with the Cffice of the 1resident, which, in turn, set aside the GT"# decision adverse to Glorious Sun and remanded the case for genuine hearings where due process would e accorded oth parties $ supra%. This decision was upheld y the Supreme .ourt in a petition doc8eted as G.-. 2o. )'*'' and entitled American Inter-Fashion Corporation vs. Office of the President, GTEB and Glorious Sun. Cn ,ay '3, ())( and &uly ', ())(, the Supreme .ourt, after finding that ". . . /merican !nter09ashion . . . was created o viously to e the recipient of export >uotas ar itrarily removed from the rightful owner FGlorious SunG", affirmed the decision of the Cffice of the 1resident remanding the case for further proceedings to the GT"# $supra, p. *'5%. 1ending its appeal to the Cffice of the 1resident, Glorious Sun filed efore the Securities and "xchange .ommission $S".% a 1etition to +eclare the 9orfeiture of the -egistration of /!9. on &une (5, ():6. This was doc8eted as S".0/. 2o. 3(). Cn ,ay '*, ())A, the 1"+ ordered there revocation of /!9.Bs registration on the ground of "fraud". /!9. thereafter appealed to the S". en anc, ut the latter upheld the revocation on ,ay '', ())'. The su se>uent ,otion for -econsideration of /!9. was also denied y the S". on Septem er (5, ())'. Cn Septem er 3A, ())', the 1etition for -eview filed y /!9. efore this .ourt doc8eted as ./0G.-. 2o. ')A(6 was denied for having een filed eyond the reglementary period. This denial was upheld y the Supreme .ourt $3rd +ivision% in a 1etition for -eview doc8eted as G.-. 2o. (A66*'. /!9.Bs su se>uent ,otion for -econsideration was li8ewise denied on 9e ruary (6, ())3 and on &uly (, ())3, the Supreme .ourt, en anc, upheld the cancellation of petitionerBs certificate of registration with finalit!. ,eanwhile, on /ugust 'A, ())', after further proceedings were conducted in CS. 2o. :*0#0( concerning Glorious SunBs alleged violations and frauds, the GT"# adopted a resolution which reads as follows; "2CJ TE"-"9C-", #" !T -"SC=V"+, as it is here y resolved; (. The instant case is here y terminated with prejudiceK '. The dis>ualification of Glorious Sun and its principal stoc8holders and officers from engaging in the garments export usiness is here y liftedK 3. The onded manufacturing warehouse license of Glorious Sun shall e restored su ject to the condition that it shall within a

reasona le period of time, comply with the re>uirements for the operation of a #,J, and *. The Board here ! a"ards to Glorious Sun the cancelled E#s of $e Soleil Apparel %anufacturin& Corporation as follo"s; (.( 'S Cat ()*+(), L -(.,(. do/ens (.' Cat 0 Canada L 10(.2,* pieces 4. The Board, under e3istin& rules, re&ulations and policies, is not in a position to restore the alance of the cancelled 4uotas. $2CT"%; #ecause; (.( Su ject >uota is currently eing performed y /!9K (.' /!9 vigorously contests Glorious SunBs claim for restoration, on the ground that /!9 has already ac>uired vested rights over the >uotaK (.3 The pending case with S". $S".0/.3()% filed y Glorious Sun for cancellation of /!9.Bs corporate registrationK (.* ,ay '', ())'0S"., en anc -esolution cancelling /!9.Bs registrationK (.4 1endency of /!9.Bs appeal with the .ourt of /ppeals filed on Septem er '4, ())'. $.omments, 5ollo, p. 6:%. !ncidentally, Glorious Sun also filed on Septem er '(, ())', GT"# .ase 2o. )'04A for the cancellation of the su ject >uotas allotted to /!9. and for restoration of the same to Glorious Sun. This case has not yet een resolved y GT"#. /!9., on the other hand, prior to the Supreme .ourt denial of its petition for review of the cancellation of its registration, re>uested the GT"# to release its "? allocation for ())3. This re>uest was, however, refused y the GT"# in a resolution dated &anuary ((, ())3, for the following reasons; ". . . relative to the re>uest of /merican !nter09ashion .orp. for the release of its ())3 !nitial "?H."/ entitlements under .at. 3*6H:; /fter a thorough discussion on the matter and, upon motion duly made and seconded, it was D -"SC=V"+, That pending final decisionHresolution of the Supreme .ourt in the case of /merican !nter09ashion .orp. $/!9.% vs. S"., the re>uest of /!9. for release of its ())3 !nitial "?H."/ entitlements under .at. 3*6H:, e, as it is here y +"9"--"+, pending study y the .ommittee created under GT"# Cffice Crder 2o. )'0(, dated Septem er ((, ())', and superseded y Cffice Crder 2o. )'0', dated 2ovem er 6, ())', to study and attend to the re>uest of /!9. pertaining to the release of its export >uotas which shall su mit its findingsHcomments and recommendation on the matter to the #oard in its next meeting. Eowever, with regard to su ject firmBs goods ready for shipment, it can participate in the "?

allocation $flexi ility% when the same is offered to ena le them to fulfill their commitments." The a ove0>uoted resolution was the su ject of the petition filed y /!9. efore the respondent &udge after GT"# refused to lift said order. This case which was doc8eted as Special .ivil /ction .ase 2o. )30((63 for Certiorari, prayed for the annulment of GT"#Bs aforementioned order, for the issuance of a temporary injunction restraining the implementation of said order, and for the immediate release of the regular "? of /!9. for ())3. / temporary restraining order $/nnex +% was thereafter issued y respondent &udge on /pril (3, ())3, enjoining GT"# from implementing its >uestioned order and from otherwise delaying the release of /!9.Bs "? entitlement for ())3. Cn /pril 'A, ())3, GT"# filed a ,otion to +ismiss and also moved to >uash the a ove0mentioned temporary restraining order. Thereafter, on ,ay 3, ())3, the respondent &udge issued one of the Crders herein >uestioned which reads as follows; "9or resolution is the petitionerBs prayer for the issuance of a writ of a preliminary prohi itory injunction . . . enjoining the GT"# and all persons acting under them from implementing the resolution of the respondent GT"#, suspending the petitionerBs export >uota entitlement for ())3 and, a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction commanding the GT"# to release the petitionerBs ())3 initial export >uotas. xxx xxx xxx !t is clear from the express terms of the >uestioned -esolution of the respondent Garments @ Textile "xport #oard that the petitionerBs export >uota has not een "suspended" as claimed y the petitioner ut was merely "deferred" pending a study of certain matters y the committee created y GT"#. Said resolution further made provisions for the petitionerBs goods which are ready for shipment y stating in the >uestioned resolution that "with regard to su ject firmBs goods ready for shipment, it can participate in the -"/ flexi ility when the same is offered to ena le them to fulfill their commitments. Thus it is clear that the respondent GT"# has not as of this time, suspended or cancelled the petitionerBs "xport ?uota ut merely deferred its release to the petitioner pending the resolution of certain matters. /s a further indication that the GT"# has not suspended the petitionerBs export >uota, is the fact that it has provided for temporary measures which allows the petitioner to ship its products which are ready for shipment in order not to unduly cause damage to the petitioner. JE"-"9C-", in view of all the foregoing, the petitionerBs prayer for writs of preliminary prohi itory and mandatory injunctions are here y +"2!"+." $/nnex /K 5ollo, pp. '30'*% /!9.Bs su se>uent motion for reconsideration was li8ewise denied $/nnex +%. Eence, the instant petition. +espite the Supreme .ourtBs final decision upholding the cancellation of /!9.Bs certificate of registration, the latter, on &uly (3, ())3, filed another 1etition for Certiorari efore the Supreme .ourt doc8eted as S.0G.-. 2o. ((A66(, against S". and Glorious Sun, assailing the S". decision dated ,ay '', ())' which ordered the

revocation of /!9.Bs certificate of registration, and see8ing to stop the cancellation of its certificate of registration. This petition $G.-. 2o. ((A66(% was denied y the Supreme .ourt on /ugust ((, ())' on the ground that the >uestioned decision of the S". "is the same decision assailed in a petition for review on certiorari filed with Fthe Supreme .ourtG on '3 2ovem er ())' under -ule *4 of the -ules of .ourt, doc8eted as G.-. 2o. (A66*'. -ecords show that the petition $in G.-. 2o. (A66*'% was denied and a motion for reconsideration of said denial was denied "ith finalit! in the resolution of the .ourt en anc, dated A( &uly ())3B $/nnex / to -espondentBs ,emorandumK 5ollo, p. 3'5%. 1etitionerBs ,otion for -econsideration in G.-. 2o. ((A66( is still pending resolution y the Supreme .ourt. !n the meantime, /!9. was awarded y the GT"# a -"/09lexi ility >uota of exactly the same category and amount as that which is the su ject of this petition the release of which was deferred y the GT"#. This was done y the GT"# allegedly so as not to prejudice /!9.Bs export commitments pending any action on its re>uest for the release of its ())3 "?s. /!9. had allegedly performed on the -"/09lex >uota since &anuary ())3 up to the present $/nnex # to -espondentBs ,emorandum%. The GT"# also allowed /!9. to continue importing raw materials "to service the alance of its -"/09lex >uota" $/nnex .K -espondentsB ,emorandum, p. (6%. !ncidentally, the difference etween the -"/09lex >uota and the regular >uota entitlement, is that the latter may e su ject to restoration for the next >uota year depending on performance of and compliance while the former is only good for one0time use and may not e carried over to the next >uota year $-espondentBs ,emorandum, p. (5K 5ollo, p. 3'5%. Cn Septem er (A, ())3, this .ourt in the instant petition and through the former Seventeenth +ivision, re>uired petitioner to amend its petition to include /!9.0 !nternational 9ashion .orporation $hereinafter, /!9.0!nternational% as co0petitioner considering /!9.Bs manifestation that it underwent a usiness reorgani<ation which resulted in the esta lishment of /!9.0!nternational as its wholly0owned su sidiary and the transfer to the latter of AIFC6s re&ular e3port allocation "ith the GTEB $p. (56, 5ollo%. -espondent GT"# o jected to /!9.Bs motion to join /!9.0!nternational as co0 petitioner ecause the latter allegedly does not have any interest in the case at ar. Furthermore, the SEC had issued a restrainin& order on Au&ust (1, 1..( en7oinin& AIFC or an! of its a&ents from transferrin& and conve!in& its assets to AIFCInternational or an! other su sidiar! of AIFC $/nnex /K p. ''A, 5ollo%. The restraining order was issued in connection with S". .ase 2o. A:0)30*4*5 filed y M eun& Chun 8am, 9eun& Chun :o, and Archie Chan vs. American Inter-Fashion Crop. $/nnex #, p. ''(, 5ollo%. !t seems that Meung .hun Nam, Meung .hun Eo and /rchie .han are among the stoc8holders of petitioner /!9. 8nown as the "Eong8ong !nvestors" who allegedly own an aggregate thirty0three percent $33I% of the total su scription of /!9.Bs capital stoc8 of 1'.4 ,illion. They alleged in their petition that they voted a&ainst the resolution adopted y /!9. which increased the corporationBs capital stoc8 from 1' ,illion to 15A ,illion, which resolved that the authori<ed capital stoc8 e paid0up with the advances of the .ampa Group representing 53I of the su scription of the capital stoc8 of /!9., and which also resolved that the corporationBs creditors0stoc8holders would e given the right to su scri e to the authori<ed capital stoc8s y converting their advances to the .orporation into e>uity. The Eong8ong group allegedly disagreed with and voted against the resolution since they wanted the additional paid0up capital to e entirely in cash with all the stoc8holders infusing new money. The resolution was allegedly not implemented, instead, the Eong8ong group claims to have discovered that without their 8nowledge the .ampa group organi<ed and registered a partnership called /merican !nter0 fashion =td., .o., as well as another su sidiary, the /!9.0!nternational. .laiming that

these acts of esta lishing the two usiness entities violated their rights as minority stoc8holders of /!9., Meung .hun Eo, Meung .hun Nam and /rchie .han filed S". .ase 2o. A:0)30*4*5 see8ing to restrain the transfer and conveyance of /!9.Bs assets to /!9.0!nternational and /merican !nter09ashion =td., .o.K to cause the appointment of trustees for the purpose of the li>uidation of /!9. under Sec. ('' of the .orporation .odeK and to order /!9. to provide Meung .hun Nam company copies of its financial statements from ():) to ())3 and to render an accounting of its operations during the said years $5ollo, pp. ''' to '34%. This case is still pending efore the S".. +

/s can e seen, there were triggered y the controversy of the parties herein innumera le pleadings and intermina le complaints; Cn /pril 6, ())3, /!9. filed a petition for certiorari, prohi ition and mandamus under -ule 54 against the GT"# with the -egional Trial .ourt of ,a8ati, #ranch (3:, entitled "/merican !nter09ashion .orporation, 1etitioner, v. Garments and Textile "xport #oard, -espondent" doc8eted as .ivil .ase 2o. )30((63 $/nnex "+" of GT"#Bs petition%. !n the said petition /!9. sought to annul, on the alleged ground of lac8 of jurisdiction or grave a use of discretion, the GT"#Bs -esolution dated &anuary ((, ())3 deferring /!9.Bs re>uest for the release of its ())3 "?s $!nitial "?H."/ entitlements under .at. 3*6H:% for the reasons therein stated. Said -esolution provided in part;
-"SC=V"+, that pending final decisionHresolution of the Supreme .ourt on the case of /merican !nter09ashion .orp. $/!9.% vs. S"., the re>uest of /!9. for release of its ())3 !nitial "?H."/ entitlements under .at. 3*6H:, e, as it is here y +"9"--"+ pending study y the .ommittee created under GT"# Cffice Crder 2o. )'0(, dated Septem er ((, ())', and superseded y Cffice Crder 2o. )'0', dated 2ovem er (6, ())', to study and attend to the re>uest of /!9. pertaining to the release of its export >uotas which shall su mit its findingsHcomments and recommendation on the matter to the #oard in its next meeting. Eowever, with regard to su ject firmBs goods ready for shipment, it can participate in the -"/ flexi ility when the same is offered to ena le them to fulfill their commitments.

Cn /pril (3, ())3, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order against GT"# pending hearing on /!9.Bs application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary prohi itory injunction. Cn /pril '*, ())3, GT"# filed its "(. ,otion to +ismiss the !nstant 1etition and '. ,otion to ?uash or -ecall the Temporary -estraining Crder." 3 Cn /pril '), ())3, GT"# filed its ",otion to -esolve ,otion to +ismiss 1rior to Eearing of the 1etition for !njunction." 4 Cn or a out () /pril ())3, Glorious Sun 9ashion Garments ,anufacturing $1hils.%, !nc. $Glorious Sun% filed an "7rgent (% ,otion for =eave to !ntervene and 9ile /nswer as -espondent0!ntervenor and '% ,otion to ?uash or -ecall Temporary -estraining Crder." This motion was opposed y /!9.. !n its Crder dated ,ay 3, ())3, the trial court denied /!9.Bs application for the issuance of the writs of preliminary prohi itory and mandatory injunction. The pertinent portions of the ,ay 3, ())3 Crder ( state;

!t is clear from the express terms of the >uestioned -esolution of the respondent Garments and Textile "xport #oard that the petitionerBs export >uota has not een "suspended" as claimed y the petitioner ut was only "+eferred" pending a study of certain matters y the committee created y GT"#. Said resolution further made provisions for the petitionerBs goods which are ready for shipment y stating in the >uestioned resolution that "with regard to su ject firmBs goods ready for shipment, it can participate in the -"/ flexi ility when the same is offered to ena le them to fulfill their commitments." Thus, it is clear that the respondent GT"# has not as of this time, suspended or cancelled the petitionerBs "xport ?uota ut merely deferred its release to the petitioner pending the resolution of certain matters. /s a further indication that the GT"# has not suspended the petitionerBs export >uota, is the fact that it has provided for temporary measures which allows the petitioner to ship its products which are ready for shipment in order not to unduly cause damage to the petitioner. JE"-"9C-", in view of all the foregoing, the petitionerBs prayer for writs of preliminary prohi itory and mandatory injunctions are here y +"2!"+.

Through its Crder dated ,ay '4, ())3, , the trial court denied /!9.Bs motion for reconsideration of the ,ay 3, ())3 Crder. /s a result thereof, /!9. filed with the .ourt of /ppeals a petition for certiorari and mandamus from the aforementioned Crders of the trial court in .ivil .ase 2o. )30((63 $doc8eted as ./0G.-. S1 2o. 3(4)5% where it prayed that the ,ay 3, ())3 and ,ay '4, ())3 Crders e set aside and a writ of mandamus e issued directing the GT"# to release /!9.Bs "?s for ())3. Thereafter, /!9. filed a ",anifestation" where it alleged that in &uly ())3, it underwent a usiness reorgani<ation which resulted in the esta lishment of a wholly0 owned su sidiary, the /!9. !nternational 9ashion .orporation. /!9. further alleged that its regular export >uota allocation with the GT"# was transferred to the aforesaid su sidiary, for which reason, the said su sidiary may e joined as a co0 petitioner in ./0G.-. S1 2o. 3(4)5. /fter the GT"# filed its ".omments" on the petition in ./0G.-. S1 2o. 3(4)5 on /ugust (), ())3, 7 /!9. filed a ",otion" ) where it prayed that /!9. !nternational 9ashion .orporation e joined as a co0petitioner. Thereafter, on or a out /ugust '5, ())3, /!9. $and /!9. !nternational% filed a "-eply" to the .omments of GT"#. 9 Su se>uent to the a ove, on Septem er (*, ())3, upon eing directed y the .ourt of /ppeals to amend its petition to include "/!9. !nternational 9ashion .orporation" as co0petitioner, /!9. filed an amended petition. 1/fter hearing the oral arguments of the GT"# and /!9., and after receiving their respective memoranda, 11 as well as other additional pleadings $including an "/ddendum To -espondentBs ,emorandum" 1+ filed y the GT"# for purposes of informing the .ourt of /ppeals of this .ourtBs Septem er '', ())3 -esolution issued in G.-. 2o. ((A66( denying with finality /!9.Bs motion for reconsideration of the /ugust ((, ())3 -esolution dismissing the said petition, and affirmed the revocation of /!9.Bs certificate of corporate registration%, or on &anuary '(, ())*, the .ourt of /ppeals rendered the +ecision su ject of GT"#Bs petition in G.-. 2o. ((*6(( in favor of /!9. and /!9. !nternational, 13 annulling the trial courtBs Crders of ,ay 3, ())3 and ,ay '4, ())3 in this wise;

JE"-"9C-", the instant petition is G-/2T"+ and the Crders of the respondent &udge dated ,ay 3, ())3 and ,ay '4, ())3 are here y annuled and set aside with no pronouncement as to costs.

Cn 9e ruary ((, ())*, the GT"# filed a ",otion 9or -econsideration" &anuary ())* +ecision.

14

of the '(

Shortly thereafter, motions to intervene as well as motions for reconsideration of the said +ecision were filed y Glorious Sun 9ashion Garments ,anufacturing .o., $1hils.% !nc. and y the minority stoc8holders of /!9. $Meung .hun Nam, Meung .hun Eo and /rchie .han%. Cn or a out &anuary 3(, ())*, on the ground that the .ourt of /ppeals in its &anuary '(, ())* +ecision had granted the petition, /!9. and /!9. !nternational filed a ",otion 9or !ssuance Cf Jrit Cf %andamus" 1( as8ing that a writ of mandamus e issued to compel the GT"# to release "?s for ())3 to /!9.. Cn 9e ruary (4, ())*, the GT"# filed its "Cpposition To 1etitionersB ,otion for !ssuance of Jrit of %andamus. 1, Cn ,arch '', ())*, the .ourt of /ppeals issued its -esolution 17 denying $(% /!9. and /!9. !nternationalBs motion for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, $'% the motions for intervention filed y Glorious Sun, and Meung .hun Nam, et al., and $3% GT"#Bs motion for reconsideration. The more pertinent portions of said -esolution read;
!t ears stressing that the su ject matter of the petition as well as of the decision sought to e reconsidered was only the ())3 allocation. Cur decision herein did not concern itself with, nor was it called upon to rule upon, any future allocations the grant or release of which is the prerogative of the GT"# in accordance with law. Je never ordered the GT"# to release the ())3 allocation to /!9., since the lapse of the year ())3 had rendered this issue moot and academic. Je wish to ma8e it clear that this .ourt is not intruding in, nor are we adjudicating upon ourselves, the powers and functions of the GT"#. The decision to annul the orders in >uestion was called for in view of the grave a use of discretion exercised oth y GT"# and the lower court in refusing to release petitionerBs ())3 allocations despite the fact that it was clearly entitled to such release. This is well within the jurisdiction of this .ourt which has the authority to chec8 the a uses which may have een committed y any officer, oard or tri unal exercising judicial functions $Sec. (, -ule 54, -ules of .ourt%. 2either are we ordering the GT"# to release or grant export >uota allocations to the transferee of /!9.Bs ())3 "? allocations. The decision never granted such right to the transferee since we 8now that this issue is solely within the jurisdiction of the GT"#. Jhat the decision discussed was petitionerBs act of transferring the interest and assets of the former /!9. to its transferee. Je do not consider this as an adjudication of GT"# functions. /s regards the ,otions to !ntervene filed y Glorious Sun and Meung .hun Nam and company, we find said motions improper. !ntervention is not an independent action ut is auxiliary and supplemental to existing litigation $.lare<a vs. -osales, ' S.-/ *44%. The office of a petition for certiorari is only to chec8 a uses or excesses in the exercise y a tri unal, oard or officer, of its judicial functions and not to determine

the respective rights and interests of the parties in the su ject matter of the litigation. This petition is therefore not the proper forum for the discussion of the respective rights either or Glorious Sun or Meung .hun Nam, and company. Jhether or not Glorious Sun is entitled to >uota allocations is an issue which could e properly raised efore the GT"#. /nd regarding the interests of Meung .hun Nam and company vis-a-vis those of /!9.Bs, the same should e properly ventilated in another appropriate proceeding. ,oreover, intervention is generally allowed only efore or during trial $Sec. ', -ule (', -ules of .ourt% unless there are strong considerations to allow such intervention. 2one exists in this case. !n view of the denial of the ,otions to !ntervene filed y Glorious Sun, Meung .hun Nam and company, there is no reason for us to discuss their motions for reconsideration. JE"-"9C-", premises considered, petitionerBs ,otion for the issuance of a Jrit of %andamus is +"2!"+. GT"#Bs motion for reconsideration is also +"2!"+ as well as the ,otions for !ntervention filed y Glorious Sun, Meung .hun Nam, Meung .hun Eo, and /rchie .han. GT"# thus filed its petition in G.5. ;o. 11)*11, where it prayed; JE"-"9C-", premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the '( &anuary ())* +ecision and '' ,arch ())* -esolution of the .ourt of /ppeals $except insofar as the latter correctly denied /!9. and /!9. !nternational 9ashion .orporationBs ",otion 9or !ssuance Cf Jrit Cf ,andamusB% #" /227=="+ /2+ S"T /S!+"K and that instead a -esolution e issued +!S,!SS!2G the petition in ./0G.-. S1 2o. 3(4)5 in its entirety for eing moot and academic andHor for lac8 of merit.

/!9.Bs petition in G.5. ;o. 112,,., on the other hand, is an offshoot of the petition filed y Glorious Sun with the GT"# on '( Septem er ())'. 1) !n said GT"# petition, 19 Glorious Sun prayed that the export >uotas which the GT"# had earlier awarded to /!9. on /ugust (, ():* pursuant to its /pril '6, ():* +ecision in /dm. .ase 2o. CS. :*0#0(, e cancelled and returned to Glorious Sun, on the alleged ground that /!9. was not >ualified to the said awards under the policies, rules and regulations of the GT"#, and more specifically ecause;
a. /!9., at the time of the award on /ugust (, ():*, did not have its own in0house production capacityK in this connection, /!9., to this date, still has no in0house production capacity as it has continued not owning any factory, plant, or even a single sewing machine, nor can it show any lease agreement for the use of any manufacturing facilitiesK . /!9. had no personality at the time of the award on /ugust (, ():* as it was not yet a corporation, its incorporation having een effected only on Septem er 5, ():*K in this connection, on ,ay '', ())', the certificate of registration of /!9. was revo8ed y order of the Securities and "xchange .ommission on the ground that the same was secured through fraudK and c. /!9., upon its incorporation, included as stoc8holders persons who were at the time dis>ualified from engaging in the garments export usiness.

The events leading to the filing of GT"# .ase 2o. )'04A are in turn summed up in the succeeding paragraphs of Glorious SunBs ".omment on 1etition with ,emorandum" dated /ugust (, ())4; +-

:. Cn '6 /pril ():*, the GT"#, on the asis of trumped0up charges of misdeclaration of importations, issued a +ecision in /dm. .ase 2o. CS. :*0#0(, cancelling the export >uotas and export authori<ations of Glorious Sun, and on A( /ugust ():* illegally awarded part thereof to /!9.. The dispositive portion of said +ecision reads thus; JE"-"9C-", the #oard finds that the -espondent firm violated its rules and regulations on importations and here y imposes the following administrative penalties; (. .ancellation of "xport ?uotas and "xport /uthori<ations of the firm and dis>ualification of the firm and the major stoc8holders and officers from engaging in garment exportsK '. .ancellation of the firmBs license to operate a onded manufacturing warehouse. The #oard will li8ewise endorse the case to the 1residential /nti0 +ollar Salting Tas8 9orce for further investigation and prosecution and will re>uest the #ureau of .ustoms to seal the firmBs onded manufacturing warehouse and to conduct an inventory of the contents thereof. ). Su se>uently, Glorious Sun appealed the said +ecision to the Cffice of the 1resident. Cn Septem er 6, ():), the Cffice of the 1resident, in C.1. .ase 2o. 36:(, nullified the +ecision of the GT"# in the succeeding manner; JE"-"9C-", the case is here y remanded to the Garments and Textile "xport #oard for further proceedings, affording the /ppellant an opportunity $a% of full disclosure of all the evidence andHor GT"# records relative to the charges in the Show .ause Crder dated 9e ruary (*, ():*, which evidenceHrecords must e properly identified and their due execution and existence duly esta lished y appropriate competent witnesses, and $ % of re utting the same evidenceHrecords through the presentation of additional evidence, after which the #oard may, on the asis of said evidence and records, maintain or revise its decision in this case. (A. Thereafter, acting on ,otions for -econsideration of its Septem er 6, ():) decision, the Cffice of the 1resident, on 9e ruary 'A, ())A, expanded its previous decision. The pertinent portion of the -esolution denying said motions are hereunder >uoted, to wit; !t is, however, insisted y the movants that the GT"# decision of April 0*, 1.,) had already ecome final and that Glorious Sun a andoned its right when it elevated the case to the Supreme .ourt y way of certiorari, doc8eted as G.-. 2o. 56(:A, "Glorious Sun 9ashion Garments and Textile ,anufacturing .ompany $1hilippines%, !nc. vs. Garments and Textile "xport #oard, etc. et al." Je disagree. 9or, as explicitly shown y the resolution promulgated on &une *, ():* y the Supreme .ourt in the said case and as found y this Cffice in the decision presently sought to e reconsidered, the said /pril '6, ():* decision was rendered y the GT"# in flagrant violation of Glorious SunBs right to due process. Eence, the GT"# may e said to have "acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and with grave a use of discretion" $#arran<a vs. .ampos, &r. ('A S.-/ ::(, :::0::)% and, therefore, the said decision is null and void $#acus vs. Cple, (3' S.-/ 5)A, 6(AK 9ree "mployees and Jor8ers

/ssn. F9"J/G vs. .ourt of !ndustrial -elations, (* S.-/ 6:(, 6:*0 6:6% as if it was not rendered at all. /s succinctly held y the Supreme .ourt; !n this jurisdiction, a void judgment or order is in legal effect no judgment or order. #y it no rights are divested. 9rom it no rights can e o tained. #eing worthless, it neither inds nor ars anyone. /ll acts performed under it and all claims flowing out of it are void $1aredes vs. ,oya, 5( S.-/ 4'4, 433, citing .have< vs. .ourt of /ppeals, '* S.-/ 553, 5:4K .omia vs. 2icolas, ') S.-/ *)', 4A304A*, >uoting .have< vs. ./, supra, and Gome< vs. .oncepcion, *6 1hil. 6(6, 6''%. Thus, eing null and void, rendered as it was in violation of the due process clause $#acus vs. Cple, supra% and conse>uently for want of jurisdiction $#arran<a vs. .ampos, &r., supra%, the GT"# decision of /pril '6, ():* "is not a decision in contemplation of law" $1lanas vs. .ollector of !nternal -evenue, 3 S.-/ 3)4, 3))% and is, therefore, "inexistent" $9ree Telephone Jor8ers 7nion vs. 1=+T, (5A S.-/ *3, *5%. .onse>uently, the same decision can "never ecome final" $,anila -ailroad .ompany vs. ,oya, (* S.-/ 34:, 3530 35*%, much less executory $1lanas vs. .ollector of !nternal -evenue, supra%. !ndeed, the parties attempting to enforce $such void judgment% may e responsi le as "trespassers" $.omia vs. 2icolas, supra, at p. 4A*%. Jhat right then could Glorious Sun have a andoned when, as illustrated y the aforecited authorities, the void and inexistent GT"# decision of /pril '6, ():* neither vests nor divests any rights, neither inds nor ars anyone? ((. The +ecision of the Cffice of the 1resident was in turn upheld y the Supreme .ourt in a -esolution dated ,ay '3, ())( and another -esolution dated &uly ', ())( in /merican !nter09ashion .orporation v. Cffice of the 1resident $()6 S.-/ *A) F())(G%. !n said case, the Supreme .ourt, citing ,a uhay Textile ,ills .orporation v. Cngpin $(*( S.-/ *36 F():5G%, ruled that the export >uota allocations of Glorious Sun had evolved into some form of property right, which should not e removed from it ar itrarily and without due process. Thus; .ontrary to the petitionerBs posture, the record clearly manifests that in cancelling the export >uotas of the private respondent GT"# violated the private respondentBs constitutional right to due process. #efore the cancellation in ():*, the private respondent had een enjoying export >uotas granted to it since ()66. !n effect the private respondentBs export >uota allocation which initially was a privilege evolved into some form of property right which should not e removed from it ar itrarily and without due process only to hurriedly confer it on another. Thus, in the case of %a uha! Te3tile %ills Corporation v. On&pin $I id%, we stated; !n the case at ar, the petitioner was never given the chance to present its side efore its export >uota

allocations were revo8ed and its officers suspended. <hile it is true that such allocations as alle&ed ! the Board are mere privile&es "hich it can revo=e and cancel as it ma! deem fit, these privile&es have een accorded to petitioner for so lon& that the! have ecome impressed "ith propert! ri&hts especiall! since not only do these privileges determine the continued existence of the petitioner with assets of over 1:A,AAA,AAA.AA ut also the livelihood of some 6AA,AAA wor8ers who are employed y the petitioner and their families. . . . $"mphasis supplied%. The decision penned y +eputy "xecutive Secretary ,agdangal #. "lma and the resolution penned y /cting +eputy "xecutive Secretary ,ariano Sarmiento !! are not tainted in the slightest y any grave a use of discretion. They outline in detail why the private respondent was denied due process when its export >uotas were cancelled y GT"#. The findings are supported y the records. 9inally, /merican !nter09ashion is hardly the proper party to >uestion the ,alacaOang decision. !t was incorporated after the incidents in this case happened. !t was created o viously to e the recipient of export >uotas ar itrarily removed from the rightful owner. !t was se>uestered precisely ecause of the allegation that it is a crony corporation which profited from an act of injustice inflicted on another private corporation. xxx xxx xxx 1-",!S"S .C2S!+"-"+, the motion for reconsideration is G-/2T"+. The instant petition is +!S,!SS"+. The >uestioned decision and resolution of the Cffice of the 1resident are here y /99!-,"+ $/merican !nter09ashion .orporation v. Cffice of the 1resident, ()6 S.-/ *A) F())(G%. ('. /fter the aforementioned +ecision of the Cffice of the 1resident was affirmed y the Supreme .ourt, and pursuant to the directive em odied in the said C.1. +ecision, the case was remanded to the GT"# for further proceedings. Eowever, while Glorious Sun presented additional evidence in support of its position, the GT"# did not, as it could not, present any evidence relative to the charges in the show .ause Crder dated (* 9e ruary ():*. !nstead, and in view of this dearth of evidence against Glorious Sun, the GT"# encouraged the latter to enter into a compromise agreement. (3. Glorious Sun assented to the execution of a compromise agreement primarily on the asis of an understanding with the GT"# that insofar as the alance of the export >uotas due to Glorious Sun was concerned $which >uotas /!9. was illegally and o stinately holding on to%, Glorious Sun would e allowed to initiate separate proceedings for the recovery thereof against /!9.. !ncidentally, this arrangement was rendered necessary y the fact that /!9. was never a proper party to, and had no personality to participate in /dm. .ase 2o. CS. :*0#0(. (*. Cn /ugust 'A, ())', the GT"# finally dismissed the complaint against Glorious Sun which formed the asis for the /pril '6, ():* decision, restoring part of the

export >uota allocations of Glorious Sun. The dispositive portion of the said -esolution reads; 2CJ TE"-"9C-", #" !T -"SC=V"+, as it is here y resolved that; a% The instant case is here y terminated with prejudiceK % The dis>ualification of Glorious Sun and its principal stoc8holders and officers from engaging in the garments export usiness is here y liftedK c% The onded manufacturing warehouse license of Glorious Sun shall e restored su ject to the condition that it shall within a reasona le period of time, comply with the re>uirements for the operations of a #,J, and d% The #oard here y awards to Glorious Sun the canceled "?s of +e Soleil /pparel ,anufacturing .orporation as follows; (. 7S .at. 3*6H3*:053,:3) d<s. '. .at. ' .anada0('3,4:6 pcs. e% The #oard, under existing rules, regulations and policies, is not in a position to restore the alance of the cancelled >uotas $p. *, GT"# -esolution dated /ugust 'A, ())'%. (4. !t will e noted that the #oard restored to Glorious Sun the portion of the export >uotas illegally ta8en away from Glorious Sun and given to +" Soleil /pparel ,anufacturing .orporation $+S/%, the same having een already ta8en ac8 y the #oard y cancellation. #ut, as stated a ove, with respect to the alance of the export >uotas illegally ta8en away from Glorious Sun still eing stu ornly illegally held on to y /!9., additional steps ecame necessary for the recovery thereof. (5. /ccordingly, on Septem er '(, ())', Glorious Sun filed GT"# .ase 2o. )'04A for the cancellation of the >uotas illegally awarded to /!9. and for the restoration of the said >uotas to Glorious Sun. (6. Cn /ugust 3, ())3, the Eearing Cfficer su mitted his -eport with the recommendation that /!9.Bs export >uotas he revo8edHcancelled and the same e returned or awarded to Glorious Sun su ject to GT"# rules and regulations on performance and forfeiture. Eowever, instead of approving the -eport of the Eearing Cfficer assigned to hear the case and who conducted the proceedings, the GT"# appointed a committee to prepare a -eport. (:. The .ommittee su mitted its -eport and -ecommendation under date of ,ay (A, ())*. Cn &une '(, ())*, the GT"# issued a -esolution adopting and approving in toto the -eport and -ecommendation. The pertinent portion of the -esolution reads; TE" 9C-"GC!2G 1-",!S"S .C2S!+"-"+, the #oard here y -"SC=V"S; (. That the export >uotas and export authori<ations awarded to /!9. e cancelledK '. That the petition of Glorious Sun to e restored the export >uota allocations which were awarded to /!9. e deniedK

3. That said export >uotas and export authori<ations of /!9. e reverted to the alloca le alance $open as8et% which shall e made availa le to other garment manufacturers, including Glorious Sun, for application thereforK and *. That /!9.Bs motion to dismiss e denied for lac8 of any merit. (). /!9. filed the instant petition to annul the a ove0>uoted &une '(, ())* -esolution of the GT"#, as well as to compel the latter to restore the cancelled export authori<ations which /!9. claims it is entitled to.

/fter Glorious Sun presented evidence in support of its petition in GT"# .ase 2o. )'04A, /!9. filed a motion to dismiss the same for lac8 of jurisdiction. +1 Cn &une '(, ())*, the GT"# issued its resolution su ject of /!9.Bs petition in G.-. 2o. ((4::), ++ the entirety whereof reads as follows;
-"SC=V"+, that the findings and recommendation of the .ommittee on /dministrative .ase 2o. )'04A, as contained in /nnex ".", e, as they are here y /+C1T"+ and /11-CV"+, in toto, wit; (. That the export >uotas and export authori<ations awarded to /!9. e cancelledK '. That the petition of Glorious Sun to e restored the export allocations which were awarded to /!9. e deniedK 3. That the said export >uotas and export authori<ations of /!9. e reverted to the alloca le alance which shall e made availa le to other garment manufacturers, including Glorious Sun, for application thereforK *. That /!9.Bs motion to dismiss e denied for lac8 of merit.

.onse>uently, on 5 &uly ())*, /!9. filed its petition in G.-. 2o. ((4::), where it sought to;
$a% annul and set aside the respondent Garments and Textile "xport #oardBs $GT"#Bs% resolution dated '( &une ())* in GT"# .ase 2o. )'0A, entitled Glorious Sun vs. AIFC, for having een issued without or in excess of jurisdiction, or in grave a use of discretionK and $ % have respondent GT"# commanded to restore or release petitioner /!9.Bs regular export >uota entitlement for ())*. +3

Simultaneous with the filing of its petition, /!9. filed a motion to consolidate the said petition with GT"#Bs petition in G.-. 2o. ((*6((. Cn &uly 'A, ())*, after praying for time for the filing thereof, Glorious Sun filed, in G.-. 2o. ((4::), a ",otion for Cutright +ismissal of the 1etition $with Cpposition to ,otion to .onsolidate%", where it sought the dismissal of said petition on the grounds that $(% /!9. has no personality to file the petitionK $'% /!9. failed to exhaust administrative remediesK and $3% /!9. is guilty of forum0shopping. !n view of Cur &uly 'A, ())* -esolution; $(% re>uiring the respondents in G.-. 2o. ((4::) to comment on the petition, and not to file a motion to dismiss, and $'%

granting /!9.Bs motion to consolidate, Glorious Sun filed a ",anifestation" on /ugust (4, ())* where y it withdrew the aforesaid ",otion for Cutright +ismissal of the 1etition $with Cpposition to ,otion to .onsolidate%." /t the same time it made manifest its intention to file a motion for reconsideration of the same &uly 'A, ())* -esolution insofar as it ordered /!9.Bs petition in G.-. 2o. ((4::) consolidated with the GT"#Bs petition in G.-. 2o. ((*6((. /ccordingly, on Septem er 6, ())*, Glorious Sun filed a ",otion for -econsideration +4 with ,otion to Suspend 1eriod to 9ile .omment." Eowever, prior to the filing of Glorious SunBs aforesaid ",otion for -econsideration, etc.," or on Septem er 4, ())*, we issued our -esolution in the a ove0num ered cases, where we resolved to;
$a% 2CT" J!TEC7T /.T!C2 the motions filed y; $(% Glorious Sun 9ashion Garments ,anufacturing in G.-. 2o. ((4::) for first and second extensions totalling fifteen $(4% days from &uly (3, ())* within which to file motion to dismiss petition and opposition to the motion to consolidateK and $'% /merican !nter09ashion .orporation F2.#. this should have read "Glorious Sun 9ashion Garments ,anufacturing" in G.-. 2o. ((*6(( for the outright dismissal of the case with opposition to the motion to consolidate, it appearing that the; $(% motion for outright dismissal with opposition to the motion to consolidate was withdrawn y private respondent Glorious Sun 9ashion Garments ,anufacturing in G.-. 2o. ((4::) through its manifestation dated /ugust ((, ())*K and $'% motion to consolidate these cases was granted y the Second +ivision on &uly 'A, ())*K $ % G-/2T the motions of; $(% private respondent /merican !nter09ashion corporation; $aa% for a fourth $final% extension of five $4% days from &uly '3, ())* within which to file comment on the petition for review on certiorariK and $ % to admit comment on the petition in G.-. 2o. ((*6((K $c% 2CT" the; $(% urgent motion of petitioner in G.-. 2o. ((4::) to resolve application for temporary restraining order or injunctionK and $'% comment on the petition with motion for the issuance of a show cause order filed y private respondent /merican !nter09ashion .orporation in G.-. 2o. ((*6((K $d% re>uire the petitioners F2.#. this should have read petitionerG to file a -"1=M within ten $(A% days from notice hereof to the comment on the petition filed y /merican !nter09ashion .orporationK and $e% 2CT" the manifestation dated /ugust (', ())* y /tty. #enjamin +. de /sis, manifesting his withdrawal as counsel for petitioner Garments and Textile "xport #oard in G.-. 2o. ((*6(( ut re>uire aforesaid counsel to S7#,!T the conformity of his client within five $4% days from notice hereof. +(

Thereafter, Glorious Sun filed on Septem er '', ())* with the 9irst +ivision of this .ourt, its ",anifestation and ,otion to Suspend 9urther 1roceedings 7ntil /fter -esolution y Second $ivision of ,otion for -econsideration of Crder of &uly 'A, ())* on .onsolidation." +, Cn the other hand, the GT"#, pursuant to Cur a ove directive, filed its -eply to /!9.Bs .omment in G.-. 2o. ((4::). /!9., as petitioner in G.-. 2o. ((*6((, filed with the Second +ivision of this .ourt an "7rgent ,otion to -esolve /pplication for !njunction," +7 which it followed up with an "7rgent ,otion to -estore Status ?uo /nte." +) The latter motion was filed with

the Third +ivision of this .ourt, to whom the a ove0num ered petitions had, in the meantime, een assigned. !n response to these urgent motions, Glorious Sun filed, also with the Third +ivision of this .ourt, its ".omment $-e; 1etitionerBs 7rgent ,otions; F(G to -esolve /pplication for !njunctionK and F'G to -estore Status ?uo /nte%" where it argued that;
!. The 9irst +ivision of this Eonora le .ourt, as far ac8 as A4 Septem er ())*, had already acted upon petitionerBs urgent motion for the issuance of a temporary restraining order or injunction, y merely noting the same. !!. !n any event, the instant motions should nevertheless e denied, there eing a solutely no showing that petitioner is clearly entitled to injunctive relief. +9

Su se>uent to the filing of the a ove pleadings, /!9. filed yet another "7rgent ,otion to -esolve," to which Glorious Sun replied through a pleading denominated as ",anifestation $-e; 1etitionerBs ,arch 3A, ())4 7rgent ,otion to -esolve% with ,otion for Summary +ismissal and ,otion to .ite 1etitioner for +irect .ontempt $9or Violation of S. -evised .ircular ':0)(%." 3Cn /pril 3, ())4, we issued a resolution, the pertinent portions whereof reads;
.onsidering the allegations contained, the issues raised and the arguments adduced in the petitions for review on certiorari, as well as the respective comments of the private respondents thereon and the replies of petitioner to said comments, the .ourt -esolved to give +7" .C7-S" to the petition, and to re>uire the parties to 9!=" their respective ,",C-/2+/ in oth cases, within twenty $'A% days from notice. The .ourt further -esolved; xxx xxx xxx $ % to 2CT"; $(% the urgent motion to resolve application for injunction, dated ,arch ', ())4, filed y counsel for petitioner /merican !nter09ashion .orporationK and $'% the urgent motion to restore status >uo ante, dated ,arch (*, ())4, filed y counsel for petitioner.

Thereafter, oth /merican !nter09ashion .orporation and the GT"# filed their respective ,emoranda. Cn the other hand, on /ugust *, ())4, Glorious Sun filed its ".omment on 1etition with ,emorandum," 31 which pleading included the succeeding explanatory remar8s;
(. /t the outset, it should e mentioned that contrary to the A4 /pril ())4 -esolution of the Eonora le .ourt, Glorious Sun has not yet filed its comment to /merican !nter0 9ashion .orporationBs $/!9.Bs% petition in the a ove0num ered case. '. Cn A6 Septem er ())*, Glorious Sun filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of this Eonora le .ourt which consolidated the instant petition with the petition of the Garments and Textile "xport #oard $GT"#% in G.-. 2o. ((*6((. Glorious Sun included in said motion for reconsideration a ",otion to Suspend 1eriod to 9ile .omment," pending resolution y the Eonora le .ourt of the consolidation incident.

3. Su se>uent thereto, or on '' Septem er ())*, Glorious Sun filed a ",anifestation and ,otion to Suspend 9urther 1roceedings 7ntil /fter -esolution y Second $ivision of ,otion for -econsideration of Crder of &uly 'A, ())* on .onsolidation. *. !n view of the filing of the aforementioned motions, Glorious Sun held off the filing of its comment to the petition until said motions were resolved y the Eonora le .ourt. To this day, however, no resolution has as yet een rendered y the Eonora le .ourt relative to the a ove0stated motions. 4. Je surmise that the comment eing referred to y the Eonora le .ourt as having een filed y Glorious Sun is that which the latter filed in connection with /!9.Bs 7rgent ,otions $(% to -esolve /pplication for !njunctionK and $'% to -estore Status ?uo /nte. 5. #e that as it may, Glorious Sun is filing the instant pleading which it prays e treated as its comment and memorandum. 3+

/ ",otion for =eave to !ntervene and Su mit ,anifestation" 33 in the a ove0entitled cases was su se>uently filed y ,essrs. Meung .hun Nam and Meung .hun Eo, who purport to e the Eong8ong investors referred to y /merican !nter09ashion .orporation in its '3 &une ())4 ,emorandum. Cn &uly (), ())5, Glorious Sun filed a ",anifestation," where y it informed this .ourt of the ,ay 'A, ())5 Crder of the Securities and "xchange .ommission $S".%, the entirety whereof reads thus;
The articles of incorporation of /merican !nter09ashion .orporation $the new /!9., for short% with S". -eg. 2o. /SA)30AA:(A(0/ reveal that said corporation was formed for the purpose of re0registering /merican !nter09ashion .orporation $the old /!9.% with S". -eg. 2o. (''35 registered with the S". on &uly (5, ():4 and that the same appear to have een approved y the .ommission en anc in its .ommission meeting held on Ccto er (*, ())3. Jhat was actually approved in said meeting was the "registration of a new corporation" and that it was not the intention of this .ommission to approve the re0registration of the old /!9.. /merican !nter09ashion .orporation $S". -eg. (''35%, whose corporate registration had een ordered revo8ed, cannot avoid li>uidation y reason of the revocation of its franchise and it cannot also e allowed to continue its usiness y virtue of its so0 called "re0registration." Viewed in this light, this .ommission en anc here y -"./==S the certificate of registration issued to /merican !nter09ashion .orporation on Ccto er (*, ())3 under S". -eg. 2o. /SA)30AA:(A(0/ without prejudice to the registration of a new corporation. 34

!n the same ",anifestation," Glorious Sun prayed, among others, for the dismissal of the a ove0entitled petitions, citing as ground therefor the a ove0>uoted S". Crder recalling /merican !nter09ashion .orporationBs certificate of registration. Thereafter, /merican !nter09ashion .orporation filed its ".ounter ,anifestation $To Glorious SunBs ,anifestation dated &uly (4, ())5%," 3( to which Glorious Sun responded y way of its "-eply $-e; .ounter 0,anifestation%. 3, !n G.-. 2o. ((*6((, the GT"# made the following assignment of errors;

!. The respondent .ourt of /ppeals erred gravely in failing to rule that it had no jurisdiction over the petition in ./0G.-. S1 2o. 3(4)5. !!. The respondent .ourt of /ppeals erred gravely in failing to rule that the petition in ./0G.-. S1 2o. 3(4)5 did not state a cause of action against GT"#. !!!. The respondent .ourt of /ppeals erred gravely in failing to hold that the (( &anuary ())3 -esolution issued y GT"# was valid and in the proper exercise of its administrative discretion and jurisdiction. !V. The respondent .ourt of /ppeals erred gravely in failing to hold that the petition in ./0G.-. S1 2o. 3(4)5 was rendered moot and academic in its entirety y the mere passage of the year ())3. V. The respondent .ourt of /ppeals erred gravely in failing to deny andHor to dismiss the petition in ./0G.-. S1 2o. 3(4)5 for lac8 of merit. 37

Cn the other hand, /!9. ma8es the following assignment of errors in its petition;

3)

The GT"# has no jurisdiction to ta8e cogni<ance of Glorious SunBs action against /!9. for "recovery" of property. 39 !n any case, the GT"#Bs issuance of a resolution deciding the action on its "merits" without hearing /!9.Bs evidence is a violation of /!9.Bs right to due process. 4The GT"#Bs cancellation of /!9.Bs "?s is a confiscation of property without due process of law. 41

TE" !SS7"S (. .onsidering that /!9.Bs .ertificate of -egistration had een effectively revo8ed y the Securities and "xchange .ommission on ,ay '', ())A, may /!9. still engage in usiness and claim entitlement to the export allocations su ject of these petitions? '. +oes the Garments and Textile "xport #oard $GT"#% have the power and authority to grant or cancel export >uotas or authori<ations? 3. +id the GT"#, in issuing the assailed -esolutions, afford /!9. the right to due process? ! This is not the first time that we have een as8ed to resolve an issue relative to /!9.Bs corporate personality. !n G.-. 2o. ((A6((, entitled "/merican !nter09ashion .orporation v. Securities and "xchange .ommission, et al.," this .ourt en anc upheld the resolutions of the 1rosecution and "nforcement +epartment $1"+% of the Securities and "xchange .ommission $S".% in 1"+ .ase 2o. :60A3'( revo8ing /!9.Bs certificate of registration, on the asis of Glorious SunBs assertions that /!9. committed fraud and misrepresentation in securing said certificate of registration, after we had li8ewise effectively upheld the very same resolutions in an earlier petition filed y /!9., entitled "/merican !nter09ashion .orporation v. .ourt of /ppeals, et al." 4+

!n said G.-. 2o. ((A6((, we recounted the factual circumstances pertinent to the revocation of /!9.Bs certificate of registration in the succeeding manner;
The complaint was assigned for investigation and hearing to S".Bs 1rosecution and "nforcement +epartment $1"+%. Cn (* ,ay ())A, 1"+ issued a resolution recommending the revocation of petitionerBs S". certificate of registrationK however, on '* ,ay ())A, 1"+ issued an amended resolution this time revo8ing the said certificate on the asis of its ruling that "there was in effect no payment of at least 1(,546,AAA.AA of the 1',4AA,AAA.AA supposed payment on su scription, contrary to the treasurerBs affidavit that the su scription of 1',4AA,AAA.AA was fully paid and the payment had een fully received." !n 1"+Bs resolution of (4 Ccto er ())A, petitionerBs motion for reconsideration was denied. /cting on petitionerBs appeal $doc8eted as Sec0/. 2o. 3()% from the said resolutions of 1"+, the S". affirmed the same, in its decisions of '' ,ay ())'. / copy of which was received y petitioner on 02 %a! 1..0. 1etitionerBs motion for reconsideration was denied y the S". in the latterBs order dated Septem er (5, ())', copy of which order was received y petitionerBs counsel on Septem er 1,, 1..0 $three F3G S". commissioners concurredK two F'G dissented%. Cn Septem er '4, ())', petitioner then filed a petition for review with the .ourt of /ppeals doc8eted as ./0G.-. S1 2o. ')A(6. #ut on Septem er (>, 1..0, the .ourt of /ppeals dismissed the petition on the ground that it was filed late $last day to file petition was on Septem er (), ())', ut petition was filed only on Septem er '4, ())', thus, petition was filed six F5G days late%. Cn 2ovem er '3, ())', petitioner filed a petition for review $under -ule *4 of the -ules of .ourt% with this .ourt, doc8eted as G.-. 2o. (A66*' assailing the resolution of the .ourt of /ppeals in said ./0G.-. S1 2o. ')A(6, and >uestioning the S". decision of '' ,ay ())' in S".0/. 2o. 3(). Cn &anuary (3, ())3, this .ourt $Third +ivision% denied /!9.Bs petition, thus affirming the .ourt of /ppealsB assailed resolution of Septem er 3A, ())', on the ground that the appellate court committed no reversi le error in dismissing the petition in ./0G.-. S1 2o. ')A(6. 1etitionerBs motion for reconsideration was referred to the .ourt en anc. Cn &uly (, ())3 the .ourt en anc denied with finality petitionerBs motion for reconsideration and held that the reason given y petitionerBs counsel for late filing of its petition $i.e. petition was filed late with the .ourt of /ppeals ecause petitionerBs counsel /tty. .eni<a of Sycip =aw got seriously ill% was not a valid excuse and not a compelling reason to reconsider the .ourtBs resolution of &anuary (3, ())3. 1etitionerBs counsel has filed the present petition $filed on (3 &uly ())3% under 5ule -2 of the -ules of .ourt, assailing the same 1"+ resolutions and S". decision assailed in G.-. 2o. (A66*' $filed under -ule *4 of the -ules%, this time on the ground that they were issued or rendered without jurisdiction. /s earlier noted, su stantially and even principally the same issues and su ject matter are raised and involved in the present petition $filed under -ule 54 of the -ules of .ourt% and those in the petition in G.-. 2o. (A66*' $filed under -ule *4 of the -ules%. !n said G.-. 2o. (A66*', petitioner had availed of the remedy of appeal y certiorari, i.e., appealing from the decision of the .ourt of /ppeals in ./0G.-. S1 2o. ')A(6. Settled is the rule that a special civil action of certiorari $under -ule 54% is not a su stitute for a lost appeal $#an8 of /merica, et al., vs. ./, G.-. 2o. 6:)(6, &une :, ())A, (:5 S.-/ *(6%. #y the resolution of this .ourt en anc, dated &uly (, ())3, rendered in G.-. 2o. (A66*', the petitionerBs privilege $or opportunity% to >uestion the S". decision dated ,ay '', ())3 rendered in S".0/. 2o. 3() was lost when the .ourt sitting en anc

denied "ith finalit! the motion of petitioner to reconsider this .ourtBs resolution of (3 &anuary ())3, denying its petition for review $G.-. 2o. (A66*'%. Thus, since petitioner had already lost its privilege to >uestion the S". resolution dated ,ay '', ())', petitioner can no longer assail the same S". resolution, not even y certiorari under -ule 54 of the -ules of .ourt. / contrary rule would swamp this .ourt with petitions for certiorari under -ule 54 after an appeal is lost under -ule *4 of the -ules. This would su vert the long esta lished pu lic policy that litigations must come to an end at one time or other. #ut even granting e3 &ratia ar&uendo that petitioner can still avail itself of the remedy of a special civil action of certiorari $under -ule 54% said remedy should e availed of within a reasona le period from the date of receipt of the assailed orderHdecision. !n 5eas vs. Bonife, we held that "a petition for certiorari under -ule 54 is re>uired to e filed within a reasona le period, no time frame eing provided in the -ules within which such petition has to e filed." !n the su se>uent case of Philsec <or=ers6 'nion vs. :on. 5omeo A. 9oun& $-esolution dated '' &anuary ())', G.-. 2o. (A(63*%, it was held that ninety $)A% days from notice of the >uestioned orderHdecision is a reasona le period within which to file a petition for certiorari under -ule 54. !n the present petition, the assailed decision of the respondent S". dated ,ay '', ())', was received y petitionerBs counsel on %a! 02, 1..0, and the S".Bs resolution denying petitionerBs motion for reconsideration was received y petitioner on Septem er 1,, 1..0. The present petition was filed on ?ul! 1(, 1..(. 9rom Septem er (:, ())' to &uly (3, ())3, almost ten $(A% months had lapsed. 7ndou tedly, said period of ten $(A% months is no longer a "reasona le period" within which a petition for certiorari under -ule 54 may e filed. /s earlier said the denial of the petition in G.-. 2o. (A66*' is final. Je must all e reminded of the settled rule that once a judgment has ecome final, the issues raised therein should e laid to rest. Eence, the issues raised anew regarding the again assailed decision of S"., dated ,ay '', ())', in S".0/. 2o. 3(), are no longer open to de ate andHor adjudication. /..C-+!2G=M, the present petition is +!S,!SS"+.
43

!t appears that su se>uent to the revocation of /!9.Bs certificate of registration, or on Ccto er (*, ())3, /!9. registered anew with the S"., this time under S". -eg. 2o. /SA)30AA:(A(0/ under the name and style; /!9. !nternational 9ashion .orporation. "vidently then, the /!9. which filed the petition in G.-. 2o. ((4::) is the /!9. which was "re-re&istered" on the a ove date, the ori&inal /!9.Bs certificate of registration having een revo8ed with finality y virtue of our resolutions referred to in our a ove0>uoted (( /ugust ())3 -esolution. 44 !n the same manner, the /!9. which the GT"# refers to in its petition in G.-. 2o. ((*6(( could not have een any one other than this same "re-re&istered" /!9., said petition having een filed su se>uent to the revocation of the original /!9.Bs certificate of registration. !t is o vious that the "re-re&istered" /!9. does not possess the legal personality necessary for it to prosecute these petitions. !n view of the ,ay 'A, ())A Crder of the S"., "the certificate of registration issued to /merican !nter09ashion .orporation on Ccto er (*, ())3 under S". -eg. 2o. /SA)30AA:(A(0/" 4( was revo8ed. 9or all legal intents and purposes. /!9. no longer exists, and it may no longer claim to e entitled to the export allocations su ject of these petitions. /fter all, it stands to reason that where there is no claimant, there can e no claim. The /!9.

!nternational is a personality separate and distinct from /!9.. 9or this reason, we cannot grant to AIFC International Fashion Corporation the personality to pursue the petition in G.-. 2o. ((*6((. !t has not applied for and is thus e>ually devoid of any personality to lay claim on the export allocations su ject of said petition. !n fine, if only for /!9.Bs lac8 of legal personality to maintain its claim relative to the export allocations su ject of these petitions, its petition in G.-. 2o. ((4::) is rendered dismissi le. Cn the other hand, and in view li8ewise of this lac8 of legal personality, we would e justified in annulling the &anuary '5, ())* and ,arch '', ())* -esolutions of the .ourt of /ppeals in ./0G.-. S1 2o. 3(4)5, and in dismissing the said petition, as prayed for y the GT"# in G.-. 2o. ((*6((. !! !n support of its assertion that it is "the sole entity possessed with the power, jurisdiction and discretion to grant and disapprove export allocations such as export >uotas," the GT"# ma8es reference to "xecutive Crder 2o. 436, as amended, including its implementing rules and regulations, and the fact that among the functions of the GT"# therein enumerated are "the approval of export allocations, as well as the monitoring, administration and regulation thereof." 4, .iting the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the GT"# further argues that eing "a highly speciali<ed administrative agency endowed with regulatory and >uasi0judicial powers . . . it enjoys the fundamental presumption that it has the technical expertise and mastery over such speciali<ed matters, so much so that its findings as to the latter would ordinarily deserve the respect of the courts." 47 /!9., on the other hand, argues that inasmuch as none of the powers specified in "xecutive Crder 436, specifically Section 3 thereof, gives the GT"# any judicial powers, nor any specific jurisdiction to hear and decide actions, as the term is understood under Section (, -ule ' of the -ules of .ourt, and inasmuch as GT"# .ase 2o. )'04A is such an action etween private litigants, the GT"# has no jurisdiction over said case. 4) To reinforce its argument, /!9. cites our ruling in Glo e <ireless @td. v. PSC. 49 !n said case, we held;
Too asic in administrative law to need citation of jurisprudence is the rule that the jurisdiction and powers of administrative agencies . . . are limited to those expressly granted or necessarily implied from those granted in the legislation creating such odyK and any order without or eyond such jurisdiction is void and ineffective . . . . (-

9or its part, Glorious Sun joins the GT"# in the latterBs assertion that it is the GT"# which has the jurisdiction to act and rule on Glorious SunBs petition for the cancellation and restoration to it of the >uotas awarded to /!9.. Thus it argues;
*:. .ontrary to /!9.Bs assertions, it is eyond dispute that the GT"# has the jurisdiction to act and rule on Glorious SunBs 1etition for the cancellation and restoration to it of the >uotas illegally awarded to /!9.. / simple reference to the pertinent provisions of the various "xecutive Crders $".C.s% relative to the functions of the GT"# easily reveals as much. *). 7nder ".C. 2o. )4', which amended ".C. 2os. 436 and :'3, it is provided;

Sec (. Section 3 su paragraphs $a%, $h%, and $i% of "xecutive Crder 2o. 436 Fon the powers and functions of the #oardG is here y amended to read as follows; xxx xxx xxx $h% !n case of violations of its rules and regulations, cancel or suspend >uota allocations, export authori<ations and licenses for the operations of onded garment manufacturing warehouses or dis>ualify the firm andHor its principal stoc8holders and officers from engaging in garment exports and from doing usiness with the #oardK . . . 4A. Thus, if only on the asis of the a ove0>uoted provision, and even in the face of the criteria set forth in Glo e, it is at once evident that the power to adjudicate on the >uestion of the /!9.Bs entitlement to the su ject "?s is "necessarily implied" from the #oardBs power to "cancel or suspend >uota allocations, export authori<ations and licenses." xxx xxx xxx 4(. Eowever, in addition to the a ove, ".C. 2o. )(3, entitled "Strengthening the -ule0 ,a8ing and /djudicatory 1owers of the ,inister of Trade and !ndustry in Crder to 9urther 1rotect .onsumers,B was li8ewise issued, which ".C., we respectfully su mit, made the GT"#Bs power to adjudicate on the >uestion of the /!9.Bs entitlement to the su ject "?s more than just eing merely "necessarily implied." 4'. Thus, Section 4 of /rticle !!! of the a ove0num ered ".C. reads; Sec. 4. Formal investi&ation. D $a% Jhenever the ,inister has verified that violationHs of "Trade and !ndustry =aws" hasHhave een committed, he may motu proprio charge said violatorHs, and thereafter proceed with a formal investigation, independent of the corresponding criminal or civil action for the said violationHs. The imposition of administrative penalties in the formal investigation is without prejudice to the imposition of penalties in the criminal action andHor judgment in the civil action, and vice versa. Provided, ho"ever, that in deciding the case the ,inister or the judge, as the case may e, shall consider the decision of the other and impose further penalties, or consider the penalties imposed y the other as already sufficient, as his sense of justice dictates. $ % The ,inister may proceed to hear and determine the violation in the a sence of any party who has een served with notice to appear in the hearing. $c% The ,inister shall use every and all reasona le means to ascertain the facts of the case speedily and o jectively without regard to technicalities of law or procedure and strict rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law and e>uity. The ,inister shall decide the case within thirty wor8ing days from the time the formal investigation was terminated. $d% The minister shall have the same power to punish direct and indirect contempts granted to superior courts under -ule 6( of the -ules of .ourt and the power to issue su poena duces tecum.

$e% Jhen the "trade and industry law" violated provides for its own administrative procedure and penalties, including a procedure where a #oard .ouncil, /uthority, or .ommittee ta8es part as a ody, the ,inister shall have the option of selecting that procedure and penalties or the procedure and penalties provided in this "xecutive Crder. !f he opts for the latter, the approval of such #oard, .ouncil, /uthority, or .ommittee of the ,inisterBs decision shall not e necessary. 43. The a ove0>uoted provisions are very significant in light of the definition of the ",inistry" as the ,inistry of Trade and !ndustry "andHor any of its ureaus, offices, or attached agencies, or any other office, unit or committee y whatever name which is placed under or attached to the ,inistry of Trade and !ndustry $Section (, /rticle !, ".C. )(3K "mphasis supplied%." The GT"# is one such ureau, office or agency. 4*. !n this connection, /!9.Bs statement to the effect that GT"# .ase 2o. )'04A is an action y one party against another for the enforcement or protection of a right, is not entirely accurate. !t will e remem ered that said GT"# case was initiated principally for the purpose of securin& the cancellation of E#s ein& ille&all! held onto ! AIFC, a proceedin& "hich is undou tedl! "ithin the am it of the Board6s po"ersA that Glorious Sun stood to enefit from such cancellation "as merel! incidental to said proceedin&. (1

/fter examining the arguments raised y all parties concerned, we find the arguments of the GT"# and Glorious Sun to e impressed with merit, and accordingly hold that the power and jurisdiction to adjudicate on the >uestion of /!9.Bs entitlement to the export allocations su ject of the a ove0entitled petitions $ e they export >uotas or export authori<ations%, which includes the discretion to grant and disapprove said export allocations, elongs solely to the GT"#, and not to the regular courts. Semantics notwithstanding, it cannot e denied that GT"# .ase 2o. )'04A was instituted y Glorious Sun for the purpose of securing the cancellation of "?s then alleged y it as eing illegally held y /!9.. This eing the case, it li8ewise cannot e denied that, as Glorious Sun correctly o serves, such a proceeding is clearly within the am it of the GT"#Bs powers, more specifically, the power granted to it y Section 3 su paragraph $h% of "xecutive Crder 2o. 436 $as amended y ".C. 2o. )4'% to "cancel or suspend >uota allocations, export authori<ations and licenses for the operations of onded garment manufacturing warehouses or dis>ualify the firm andHor its principal stoc8holders and officers from engaging in garment exports and from doing usiness with the #oard," in case of violations of its rules and regulations. !n light of the a ove, /!9.Bs reliance on our ruling in Glo e <ireless @td. v. PSC, (+ is clearly misplaced. Cn the asis of the provisions of law cited y oth the GT"# and Glorious Sun, that the power to adjudicate on the >uestion of an entityBs entitlement to export allocations "as e3pressl! &ranted to the GTEB, or at the very least, "as necessaril! implied from the power to cancel or suspend >uota allocations, is eyond cavil. !n addition, we must ta8e judicial notice of the fact that /!9., in cases involving the same controversy as that in the a ove0entitled petitions, has recogni<ed the exclusive jurisdiction of the GT"# to award or cancel export allocations to deserving entities.

/!9. categorically declared in its ",otion to +ismiss," .ivil .ase 2o. )30(3: (3 that ""xecutive Crder 2o. 436, as amended y "xecutive Crder 2os. :'3 and )4', vests upon defendant GT"# exclusive jurisdiction to grant export >uota allocations," and that "$u%nder the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, only defendant GT"# has the authority to awardHcancel export >uotas." !n fact, it is noteworthy that in said motion to dismiss, /!9. relied upon the very principles cited y oth the GT"# and Glorious Sun in the a ove0entitled petitions in support of their argument that it is the GT"# which has jurisdiction over the export allocations su ject of said petitions, to wit;
.ourts of justice should not generally interfere with purely administrative and discretionary functionsK that courts have no supervisory power over the proceedings and actions of the administrative departments of the government involving the exercise of judgment and findings of fact, ecause y reason of their special 8nowledge and expertise over matters falling under their jurisdiction, the latter are in a etter position to pass judgment on such matters and their findings of facts in that regard are generally accorded respect, if not finality, y the courts. $/teneo de ,anila v. ./, (*4 S.-/ (A4% (4

/!9. reiterated this stance in its ",otion to +ismiss" in .ivil .ase 2o. 5*A(A wise;

((

in this

/s stated a ove, this .ourt cannot grant the reliefs sought in the .omplaint without first deciding that /!9. is not entitled to "?s, and that, in effect, the E#s no" in AIFC6s name should e cancelled. This power, however, has een granted not to the courts ut to the GT"#, which is vested with jurisdiction D FiGn case of violations of its rules and regulations, FtoG cancel or suspend >uota allocations, export authori<ations and licenses for the operations of onded garment manufacturing warehouses andHor to dis>ualify the firm andHor its principal stoc8holders and officers from engaging in garment exports and from doing usiness with the #oard $Section 3FhG, "xec. Crder 2o. 436 F()6)G, as amended y "xec. Crder 2o. :'3 F():'G and "xec. Crder 2o. )4' F():*G%. /nd even assuming for argument that it is indeed vested with original jurisdiction to cancel E#s, under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, this .ourt cannot at this time ta8e cogni<ance of the .omplaint $Supra, at pp. (*0(4%.

Eaving already invo8ed the jurisdiction of the GT"# in earlier actions involving the same controversy as that efore us, /!9. cannot now e heard to >uestion that same jurisdiction simply ecause it was una le to o tain the reliefs prayed for y it from the GT"#. Je have warned against such a practice on more than one occasion in the past. ,ost recently, in St. @u=e6s %edical Center, Inc. v. Torres, (, we reiterated such warning;
!t is a settled rule that a party cannot invo8e the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and after failing to o tain such relief, repudiate or >uestion that same jurisdiction. / party cannot invo8e jurisdiction at one time and reject it at another in the same controversy to suit its interests and convenience. The .ourt frowns upon and does not tolerate the undesira le practice of some litigants who su mit voluntarily a cause and then accepting the judgment when favora le to them and attac8ing it for lac8 of jurisdiction when adverse $Tajonera v. =amaro<a, ((A S.-/ **6, citing Tijam v. Si onghanoy, '3 S.-/ 34% (7

!!!

/s to the allegations of /!9. that it was deprived of due process, we find no merit to this contention. Jith respect to the &une '(, ())* -esolution of the GT"# which /!9. assails in its petition in G.-. 2o. ((4::), it is /!9.Bs contention that the GT"# issued said resolution () without giving /!9. the opportunity to e heard and without receiving its evidence in any form. Je disagree. !nsofar as the supposed failure of the GT"# to issue a show cause order to /!9. is concerned, we hold that the GT"# committed no grave a use of discretion in instituting an action against /!9. on the asis of the allegations in Glorious SunBs petition in GT"# .ase 2o. )'04A. !t is apparent from the rule cited y /!9. (9 that the same was aimed primarily at ensuring that if any action is to e filed against a respondent, the same must have sufficient asis in fact. .onse>uently, for so long as this goal is achieved, al eit through some other means, no undue prejudice can e caused y the non0issuance of a show0cause order. !n fact, as correctly pointed out y Glorious Sun, the GT"#, as a ureau, office or agency attached to the ,inistry of Trade and !ndustry, may even motu proprio charge violators of "Trade and !ndustry =aws," and thereafter proceed with a formal investigation. ,/nent /!9.Bs claim that it was not afforded the opportunity to present evidence in GT"# .ase 2o. )'04A, we find such claim unworthy of elief. The GT"#, as an administrative agency, has in its favor the presumption that it has regularly performed its official duties, including those which are >uasi0judicial in nature. !n the a sence of clear facts to re ut the same, said presumption of regularity must e upheld. This is also ut in 8eeping with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Je are inclined to give credence instead to Glorious SunBs assertions relative to /!9.Bs presentation of evidence in GT"# .ase 2o. )'04A, there eing ample asis in the records therefor. Thus, after examining the ",otion to +ismiss" filed y /!9. in GT"# .ase 2o. )'04A, ,1 we find nothing therein to indicate that /!9. reserved its right to present evidence in said GT"# case, contrary to /!9.Bs claims. Cn the other hand, as correctly pointed out y Glorious Sun, if any reservation was made y /!9. in its "Sur -ejoinder $-e; ,otion to +ismiss%," attached to /!9.Bs petition as /nnex ""," this was limited to the reservation "to raise the >uestion of jurisdiction." ,+ ,ore importantly, it is apparent that not only was /!9. afforded the opportunity to present evidence, it actually too= advanta&e of this opportunit! ! presentin& documentar! evidence, as asserted y Glorious Sun, an assertion which /!9. most nota ly failed to refute. /s we have declared time and again, what is repugnant to due process is the denial of the opportunit! to e heard. ,3 That /!9. was afforded this opportunity is eyond >uestion. 9rom what has een discussed the following conclusions are made; $(% /!9. no longer has the legal personality to prosecute the a ove0entitled petitions and may therefore no longer claim entitlement to the export allocations su ject of these petitionsK

$'% !t is the GT"#, and not the regular courts, nor the .ourt of /ppeals, has the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the >uestion of /!9.Bs entitlement to the export allocations su ject to these petitionsK and $3% /!9.Bs right to due process was in no wise violated y the GT"#, the former not having ta8en advantage of the opportunity afforded to it to present evidence in its ehalf. JE"-"9C-", /!9.Bs petition in G.-. 2o. ((4::) is here y +"2!"+ for lac8 of merit, as well as for eing moot and academic, /!9. having lost the legal personality to prosecute the same. GT"#Bs petition is G-/2T"+, and the assailed &anuary '(, ())* +ecision and ,arch '', ())* -esolution of the .ourt of /ppeals in ./0G.-. S1 2o. 3(4)5 is here y /227=="+ /2+ S"T /S!+" $except insofar as it denied /!9. and /!9. !nternational 9ashion .orporationBs ",otion for !ssuance of Jrit of %andamus"%. Said ./0G.-. S1 2o. 3(4)5 is li8ewise ordered annulled and set aside. SC C-+"-"+. Padilla, Bitu& and 8apunan, ??C, concurC Bellosillo, ?C, too= no partC