6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly of legal rights that can be interpreted and enforced on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence. (Emphases supplied) However, the Court agrees with the Republic that while the case has indeed been rendered moot, it can still pass upon the main issue for the guidance of both bar and bench. It is settled that courts will decide a question otherwise moot and academic if the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.[27] In stressing that the RTC is bereft of jurisdiction to entertain the injunction case, the Republic avers that it is the POEA which has original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all pre-employment cases which are administrative in character involving or arising out of violations of recruitment regulations, or violations of conditions for the issuance of license to recruit workers, under Section 3(d) of Executive Order No. 247[28] (EO 247) and as reiterated in Section 1, Rule I, Part VI of the 2002 POEA Rules. [29] On the other hand, the remedy of an appeal/petition for review of an Order issued by the POEA in the exercise of such exclusive jurisdiction is lodged exclusively with the DOLE Secretary as provided under Section 1, Rule V, Part VI of the 2002 POEA Rules. [30] Notably, however, nothing in EO 247 and the 2002 POEA Rules relied upon by the Republic provides for the grant to a recruitment agency of an injunctive relief from the immediate execution of penalties for serious offenses (e.g., cancellation to operate, suspension of license for a maximum period of 12 months). Conversely, they do not deprive the courts of the power to entertain injunction petitions to stay the execution of a POEA order imposing such penalties. The Court thus agrees with the CA in holding that the RTC can take cognizance of the injunction complaint, which "is a suit which has for its purpose the enjoinment of the defendant, perpetually or for a particular time, from the commission or continuance of a specific act, or his compulsion to continue performance of a particular act."[31] Actions for injunction and damages lie within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the RTC pursuant to Section 19[32] of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended by RA 7691.[33] While "[w]ell-entrenched is the rule that courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of the government agency entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under the special and technical training and knowledge of such agency,"[34] it is not entirely correct to say that an action by an administrative agency, such as in the case at bar, cannot be questioned in an injunction suit. It has been held that "[c]ourts cannot enjoin an agency from performing an act within its prerogative, except when in the exercise of its authority it gravely abused or exceeded its jurisdiction."[35] Indeed, administrative decisions on matters within the executive jurisdiction can be set aside on proof of grave abuse of discretion, fraud, or error of law, and in such cases, injunction may be granted.[36] The Republic further argues that Principalia committed forum-shopping when it sought relief both from the RTC and the DOLE Secretary. The Court, however, finds otherwise. What Principalia questioned before the DOLE Secretary was the merits of the case elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61203 5/9