National Federation of Hog Farmers v. Board of Investments
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns the registration of Charoen Pokphand Foods Philippines Corporation (Charoen), a 100% foreign-owned company, as a new producer of aqua feeds, hog parent stocks, slaughter hogs, and integrated broiler chickens. The petitioners, representing various sectors of the local agribusiness industry, challenged the approval of Charoen's applications by the Board of Investments (BOI), arguing that such registration would lead to unfair foreign competition and harm local enterprises. Procedural History: Charoen submitted three separate applications for registration with the BOI. After undergoing a check-listing and assessment process, notices of these applications were published in a newspaper of general circulation, with a three-day period for objections. Subsequently, the BOI's Board of Governors approved each application through separate resolutions. Petitioners, after being denied copies of supporting documents, filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the BOI's resolutions. The respondents, the BOI and Charoen, filed their respective comments, arguing that the petition should be dismissed on procedural grounds, including failure to exhaust administrative remedies and improper filing directly with the Supreme Court. The Petition: The petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, alleging that the BOI acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting Charoen's applications. They contended that the BOI's actions violated their constitutional right to protection against unfair foreign competition, that the resolutions were issued without proper consultation with the Department of Agriculture, and that Charoen was wrongly classified as a new producer. They also claimed they were deliberately deprived of the chance to appeal by the refusal to provide them with copies of the resolutions. The petition also raised arguments regarding misrepresentations in Charoen's applications and the alleged lack of technical expertise of the BOI in agricultural matters.
Issue(s)
Whether the Petition for Certiorari filed directly before the Supreme Court is the correct remedy. Whether the Board of Investments committed grave abuse of discretion when it approved the applications for registration of Charoen Pokphand Foods Philippines Corporation.
Ruling
The Petition is DISMISSED. The assailed February 28, 2012, April 24, 2012, and November 6, 2012 Board Resolutions issued by the Board of Governors of the Board of Investments, which approved private respondent Charoen Pokphand Foods Philippines Corporation's applications for registration, are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the procedural issue of the correct remedy: The Court held that the Petition for Certiorari filed directly with the Supreme Court was not the correct remedy. Under Article 36 of Executive Order No. 226 (Omnibus Investments Code of 1987), decisions of the Board of Investments on applications for registration under the Investment Priorities Plan are appealable to the Office of the President. This doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction dictates that administrative agencies must be given the chance to resolve matters within their expertise before judicial recourse. The Court noted that petitioners failed to exhaust this administrative remedy. Furthermore, even if certiorari were the proper remedy, the petition was filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period prescribed by Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioners had notice of the assailed resolutions as early as November 28, 2012, through legislative inquiries, yet filed their petition only on March 7, 2013, 99 days later. The Court also found that petitioners failed to establish legal standing, as they did not sufficiently show that they or their members suffered direct injury or that their members were hindered from personally asserting their interests. On the substantive issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Board of Investments. The Court reiterated that the Constitution does not prohibit foreign investments and that agribusiness is not a nationalized industry, allowing for 100% foreign equity participation. The applications of Charoen were processed in accordance with Executive Order No. 226 and evaluated based on established criteria such as compliance with the Investment Priorities Plan, Net Value-added, job generation, multiplier effect, and measured capacity. The BOI considered the documented deficits in local production versus demand for aqua feeds, pork, and poultry, which justified the approval of Charoen's applications to bridge these gaps. The Court emphasized that the findings of fact of administrative agencies, like the BOI, are entitled to respect and deference due to their specialized expertise.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari directly filed with the Supreme Court assailing resolutions of the Board of Investments approving applications for registration is dismissible for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, as the proper remedy is an appeal to the Office of the President under Article 36 of Executive Order No. 226. Furthermore, the petition was filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period for filing a petition for certiorari.