Petitioner Philippine Merchant Marine School was established to train marine officers but had its permit to operate revoked by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports due to recurring violations. It appealed the revocation but the Office of the President and Court of Appeals upheld the revocation. The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner was not denied due process, as it was given multiple opportunities to address deficiencies and comply with orders before the revocation and was able to file several motions for reconsideration.
Petitioner Philippine Merchant Marine School was established to train marine officers but had its permit to operate revoked by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports due to recurring violations. It appealed the revocation but the Office of the President and Court of Appeals upheld the revocation. The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner was not denied due process, as it was given multiple opportunities to address deficiencies and comply with orders before the revocation and was able to file several motions for reconsideration.
Original Description:
Philippine Merchant Marine School, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals Case Digest
Petitioner Philippine Merchant Marine School was established to train marine officers but had its permit to operate revoked by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports due to recurring violations. It appealed the revocation but the Office of the President and Court of Appeals upheld the revocation. The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner was not denied due process, as it was given multiple opportunities to address deficiencies and comply with orders before the revocation and was able to file several motions for reconsideration.
Petitioner Philippine Merchant Marine School was established to train marine officers but had its permit to operate revoked by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports due to recurring violations. It appealed the revocation but the Office of the President and Court of Appeals upheld the revocation. The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner was not denied due process, as it was given multiple opportunities to address deficiencies and comply with orders before the revocation and was able to file several motions for reconsideration.
PHILIPPINE MERCHANT MARINE SCHOOL, INC., vs. CA FACTS: Petitioner PHILIPPINE MERCHANT MARINE SCHOOL, INC. (PMMSI), was establishe in Manila in !"#$ to train an %ro&'e 'o(%etent (arine o))i'ers. P&bli' res%onent *e%art(ent o) E&'ation, C<&re an S%orts (*ECS) has re%eatel+ isa%%rove %etitioner,s re-&ests )or renewal %er(it.re'o/nition &e to the )ollowin/ re'&rrent violations a/ainst %&bli' res%onent0s orers1 !). That Petitioner is orere to 'ease o%eratin/ witho&t a renewal %er(it.re'o/nition2 3.) That Petitioner is e)i'ient in ter(s o) the (ini(&( re-&ire(ents as %rovie in *ECS Orer No. III, series o) !"45, whi'h re)ers to the %oli'ies an stanars )or Mariti(e E&'ation Plan. 6.) The Petitioner s'hool has not a'-&ire its own s'hool site an b&ilin/. The %resent s'hool 'a(%&s is not 'on&'ive )or trainin/ an is )o&n to be ver+ li(ite in s%a'e so that there is i))i'<+ )or s'hool evelo%(ent an e7%ansion. 8.) That the %etitioner is orere to %hase9o&t its Marine En/ineerin/ an Marine Trans%ortation 'o&rses. *es%ite these violations, %etitioner still 'ontin&e to enrol st&ents an still o))ere 'o&rses in Marine En/ineerin/ an Marine Trans%ortation. The *ECS in)or(e %etitioner that it ha re'eive re%orts that %etitioner enrolle )resh(en )or its (ariti(e %ro/ra(s whi'h were orere %hase o&t. Petitioner (ove )or re'onsieration re/arin/ the non9'o(%lian'e with the *ECS0 (ini(&( re-&ire(ents an s&bse-&entl+ (ove )or re'onsieration re/arin/ the %hasin/ o&t o) the two Marine 'o&rses state above. :oth (otions were enie b+ the *ECS. Petitioner a%%eale to the O))i'e o) the Presient. Penin/ a%%eal, the *ECS iss&e a Clos&re Orer. Therea)ter, %etitioner so&/ht re'onsieration o) the Clos&re Orer alle/in/ 'o(%lian'e with the *ECS0 re-&ire(ents. The O))i'e o) the Presient is(isse the a%%eal )inin/ no reason to ist&rb the *ECS0 a'tion. Petitioner (ove )or re'onsieration %ra+in/ that the 'ase be re(ane to the *ECS )or another o'&lar ins%e'tion an eval&ation o) its alle/e i(%rove )a'ilities. Petitioner an'hore its (otion on the %ro%osition that sin'e it ha (ae s&bstantial i(%rove(ents on s'hool e-&i%(ent an )a'ilities there e7iste no vali /ro&n to en+ the( a %er(it to o))er (ariti(e 'o&rses. A)ter another 'ir'&(s%e't review o) the 'ase, the O))i'e o) the Presient )o&n no 'o/ent reason to set asie its %revio&s resol&tion. Petitioner assaile both resol&tions o) the O))i'e o) the Presient be)ore res%onent Co&rt o) A%%eals b+ wa+ o) certiorari. It alle/e that the resol&tions )aile to (eet the 'onstit&tional re-&ire(ent o) &e %ro'ess be'a&se the basis )or a))ir(in/ the *ECS %hase9o&t an 'los&re orers was not s&))i'ientl+ is'lose. Res%onent CA is(isse the %etition an enie the (otion )or re'onsieration. ISSUE: ;hether or not %etitioner was enie &e %ro'ess o) law. RULING: Set a/ainst the re'ors o) the 'ase, the assertion o) %etitioner that it was e%rive o) its ri/ht to a hearin/ an an+ o%%ort&nit+ whatsoever to 'orre't the alle/e e)i'ien'ies reail+ 'olla%ses. The earlier narration o) )a'ts 'learl+ e(onstrates that be)ore the *ECS iss&e the %hase9o&t an 'los&re orers, %etitioner was &l+ noti)ie, warne an /iven several o%%ort&nities to 'orre't its e)i'ien'ies an to 'o(%l+ with %ertinent orers an re/&lations. ;e a/ree with the observation o) the O))i'e o) the Soli'itor <eneral that = As lon/ as the %arties were /iven o%%ort&nit+ to be hear be)ore >&/(ent was renere, the e(ans o) &e %ro'ess were s&))i'ientl+ (et (Lino v. COMELEC, !"8 SCRA 3#). It sho&l also be note that %etitioner herein re%eatel+ so&/ht re'onsieration o) the vario&s orers o) res%onent *ECS an its (otions were &l+ 'onsiere b+ res%onent *ECS to the e7tent o) allowin/ an /rantin/ its re-&est )or re9ins%e'tion o) its %re(ises. In 'onne'tion therewith, it has been r&le that the o%%ort&nit+ to be hear is the essen'e o) %ro'e&ral &e %ro'ess an that an+ e)e't is '&re b+ the )ilin/ o) a (otion )or re'onsieration (Meenilla v. Civil Servi'e Co((ission, !"8 SCRA 354) Petition *ENIE*.