Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF LA TRINIDAD

FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
Benguet Province

The People of the Philippines, Crim. Case No. R-19957

Plaintiff,

-versus- For:

Violation of Section 19 in relation

AAAA, to Section 56(e) of the Land
Accused. Transportation Code ( RA 4136/
Driving a Motor Vehicle without
a Valid Driver’s License.
X---------------------------x

MOTION TO DISMISS

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE HONORABLE COURT.

The ACCUSED, thru the undersigned Public Attorney and unto the Honorable
Court, most respectfully states that:

1. The accused was charged for Violation of Sec. 19 in relation to Sec. 56 (e) of the
Land Transportation Code in an Information which states as follows:

“ INFORMATION

The undersigned accuses AAAA for Violation of Section 19 in relation to

Section 56 (e) of the Land Transportation and Traffic Code (RA 4136/Driving a
Motor Vehicle Without a Valid Driver’s License), committed as follows:
That on or about 30th of August 2019, in La Trinidad, Benguet,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously drive and
operate a Mitsubishi Montero SUV bearing plate no. ACX 1989 along km. 6, La
Trindad, Benguet, without first securing a valid license to drive a vehicle from
the proper authorities concerned.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

La Trinidad, Benguet, Philippines. December 2, 2019.”

2. Sec. 19 of RA 4136 provides that:

“Sec. 19. Duty to procure license - Except as otherwise specifically

provided in this Act, no person shall operate any motor vehicle without first
procuring a license to dirve a motor vehicle for the current year, nor while such
license is delinquent, invalid, suspended or revoked.
 The license shall be carried by the driver at all times when operating a
motor vehicle, and shall be shown and/or surrendered for cause and upon
demand to any person with authority under this Act to confiscate the same.”

3. Sec. 56 (e) of the same law, provides that:

“(e) Driving a motor vehicle without first securing a driver’s license, three
hundred pesos fine.”

4. The undersigned most respectfully prays that the above-entitled case be dismissed on
the ground that not all the administrative remedies as provided by law has not been
exhausted. The Honorable Supreme Court held in the case of Paat vs. CA 1 that :
“This Court in a long line of cases has consistently held that before a party is
allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition that he should
have availed of all the means of administrative processes afforded him. Hence,
if a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by
giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a
matter that comes within his jurisdiction then such remedy should be exhausted
first before court's judicial power can be sought, The premature invocation of
court's intervention is fatal to one's cause of action. Accordingly, absent any
finding of waiver or estoppel the case is susceptible of dismissal for lack of cause
of action.”

2
5. Likewise in the case of Teotico v. Baer, the Supreme Court held, citing Gonzales vs.
CA3 held that:

“The thrust of the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies is that the

courts must allow the administrative agencies to carry out their functions and
discharge their responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective
competence. Reasons of law, comity and convenience prevent the courts from
entertaining cases proper for determination by administrative agencies.”
x-x-x-x-x-x

In the said case, the Honorable Supreme Court citing Castro vs. Gloria 4 held that:

“Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, recourse through

court action cannot prosper until after all such administrative remedies have
first been exhausted. If remedy is available within the administrative
machinery, this should be resorted to before resort can be made to courts. It is

1
Paat v. CA; G.R. No. 111107 (1997)
2
Teotico v. Baer; G.R. No. 147464 (2006)
3
Gonzales v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106028, 9 May 2001, 357 SCRA 599.
4
Castro v. Gloria, 415 Phil. 645 (2001).
 settled that non-observance of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies results in lack of cause of action, which is one of the grounds in the
Rules of Court justifying the dismissal of the complaint.”

6. The reasons why the said doctrine must first be availed of before resorting to courts
are to:
a. provide an orderly procedure prescribed by law with respect to matters
peculiarly within the competence of the administrative agency. 5
b. give the agency an opportunity to decide on its own matters and to correct its
own errors.6
c. prevent unnecessary and premature resort to the court. 7

7. In the case at hand, with all due respect, it is submitted that the Land Transportation
Office is vested with quasi-judicial functions/powers to conduct hearings in relation to
the regulation of transportation services. Executive Order No. 1011 (March 20, 1985),
which is the law ESTABLISHING THE LAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION IN
THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES in its whereas clauses states that:
“WHEREAS, efficient and reliable transportation services constitute a vital
supportive system to national development;
WHEREAS, the rationalization of the administrative framework for the exercise
of quasi-judicial and enforcement functions in the regulation of transportation services,
will enhance the effectiveness of such services and redound to the welfare of the public;
(emphasis supplied)"
8. Likewise, Sec. 7 of the same law provides that:
“Sec. 7. Regional Offices. The Commission may establish such regional offices as
may be necessary which shall be under the supervision and control of the
Chairman. Each of these regional offices shall be headed by a Regional Director
who shall be assisted by one or more Assistant Regional Directors.
Whenever practicable, and in order to enhance efficiency and economy in
operations, the Commission proper, as a body, may authorize the regional
offices of the Commission to conduct hearings with respect to the exercise of its
quasi-judicial functions, including the authority to adjudicate certain matters
as may be determined by the Commission, and subject to such guidelines as it
may prescribe.
Sec. 8. Appeals. Decisions of the regional offices made pursuant to the authority
delegated to them shall be appealable to the Commission. Decisions of the
Commission shall be appealable to the Intermediate Appellate Court by petition
for review.”

5
Antonio v. Tanco; G.R. No. L-38135 (1975)
6
Zabat v. CA; G.R. No. 122089 (2000) & Bernardo v. Abalos, Sr.; G.R. No. 137266 (2001)
7
Lopez v. City of Manila; G.R. No. 127139 (1999)
8. Moreover, the 2019 Citizen’s Charter of the Land Transportation Office provided
guidelines for the LTO officials in the conduct of the enforcement of transportation
laws, specifically, Section VI of the same provides that:

“VI. LAW ENFORCEMENT AND TRAFFIC ADJUDICATION SERVICE (LETAS)

 External
1. Settlement of Admitted Procedure
1.1. Admitted Cases Settled Within 15 Days from the Date of Apprehension,
Without Accessory Penalty
1.2. Admitted Cases Settled Within 15 Days from the Date of Apprehension,
With Accessory Penalty
2. Adjudication of Contested Apprehension
2.1. Contested Cases (Traffic Adjudication Service (TAS) and Regional
Offices)
2.2. Contested Cases (District Offices)
2.3. Motion for Reconsideration (TAS) and Regional Office
2.4. Appeal on Decided Cases”

9. Considering the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court that
the above-entitled case be remanded to the Land Transportation Office for adjudication
in deference to the principle of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies.

Other Reliefs Just and Equitable Under the Premises are likewise prayed for.

Respectfully Submitted this 9th day of March 2020 in the Municipality of La Trinidad,
Benguet.