6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly which brought about the POEA's issuance of its order cancelling Principalia's license. Whereas before the RTC, the relief sought by Principalia is limited to enjoining the POEA from immediately enforcing such cancellation. Clearly, the reliefs sought by Principalia from the two fora were different and this negates forum-shopping.[37] Neither would the RTC, in resolving the injunction suit, encroach upon the DOLE Secretary's authority since Principalia was not asking the said court to prohibit the DOLE Secretary from resolving the appeal before it or for Principalia to be allowed to continue operating its business regardless of the judgment in the appeal. Anent the failure of Principalia to observe the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies, suffice it to say that this principle admits of exceptions,[38] and notably, Principalia raised one of these exceptions, i.e., deprivation of due process, as an issue in its suit. And since this issue is a question of fact which the Court can only determine after the trial is had, the RTC was correct in not dismissing the case and in allowing the same to proceed to trial. Significantly, this likewise goes true with respect to the main relief for injunction. As the elements for its issuance, i.e., (1) there must be a right to be protected; and (2) the acts against which the injunction is to be directed are violative of said right,[39] are matters that must be proved during trial, the RTC merely acted in its judicial sphere when it proceeded to try the case. WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DENIED. The April 4, 2011 Decision and August 31, 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 111874 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur. [1] Rollo, pp. 10-48. [2] CA rollo, pp. 413-420; penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios and concurred in by Associate Justices Mario L. Guariña III and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. [3] Id. at 3-26. [4] Records, Vol. 2, pp. 560-565 and 688-689, respectively; penned by Judge Rizalina T. Capco-Umali. [5] CA rollo, pp. 491-492. [6] Records, Vol. 1, pp. 62-69. [7] Section 2. Grounds for imposition of administrative sanctions: xxxx elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/61203 6/9