Phil Interisland Shipping Vs CA
Phil Interisland Shipping Vs CA
Phil Interisland Shipping Vs CA
such
SUPREME COURT services as are necessary in the ports vested in, or
Manila belonging to the Authority" 1 and to "control,
regulate and supervise pilotage and the conduct of
EN BANC pilots in any Port District." 2 It also has the power "to
impose, fix, prescribe, increase or decrease such
rates, charges or fees. . . for the services rendered by
the Authority or by any private organization within a
Port District." 3
G.R. No. 100481 January 22, 1997
WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing, the petition is Private respondents UHPAP and MPA viewed the
hereby granted. matter differently. On October 28, 1992, they asked
the RTC-Manila, Branch 2 which heard and decided
1. Respondents are hereby Civil Case No. 88-44726 to cite PPA officials in
declared to have acted in excess of contempt of court. On the same day, the trial court
jurisdiction and with grave abuse issued an order restraining the herein petitioners
of discretion amounting to lack of from implementing Administrative Order No. 05-92.
jurisdiction in approving Resolution However, the PPA proceeded to implement its order,
No. 860 and in enacting Philippine prompting the UHPAP and MPA to move again to
Ports Authority Administrative cite petitioners in contempt, even as they
Order No. 02-88, the subject of questioned the validity of A.O. No. 05-92.
which is "Implementing Guidelines Accordingly the trial court issued another order on
on Open Pilotage Service"; November 4, 1992, reiterating its previous order of
October 28, 1992 to petitioners to refrain from
2. Philippine Ports Authority implementing A.O. No. 05-92 pending resolution of
Administrative Order No. 02-88 is the petitions.
declared null and void;
Making a special appearance, petitioners questioned
3. The preliminary injunction the jurisdiction of the court and moved for the
issued on September 8, 1989 is dismissal of the petitions for contempt. Allegedly to
made permanent; and prevent the disruption of pilotage services,
petitioners created a special team of reserve pilots
to take over the pilotage service in the event
4. Without costs.
members of UHPAP/MPA refused to render pilotage
services.
SO ORDERED.
For the third time respondents moved to cite
Respondents and the intervenors below filed a joint
petitioners in contempt of court. Again petitioners
petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA
questioned the court's jurisdiction and manifested
G.R. SP No. 19570), assailing the decision of the trial
that they were adopting their previous motion to
court. But their petition was dismissed for lack of
dismiss petitions for contempt filed against them.
jurisdiction on the ground that the issue raised was
purely legal.
On November 17, 1992, the trial court denied the
petitioners' motion and set the contempt petitions
The parties separately filed petitions for review
for hearing on November 19, 1992. Hence, this
before this Court. The first one, by the PPA and its
petition, which was docketed as G.R. No. 107720
officers, was docketed as G.R. No. 100109 (Hon. Pete
(Hon. Jesus B. Garcia, Jr. in his capacity as Secretary
Nicomedes Prado, Philippine Ports Authority and
of Transportation and Communications and coastwise vessels in all Philippine ports, whether
Chairman of the Philippine Ports Authority, public or private;
Commodore Rogelio A. Dayan, in his capacity as
General Manager of the Philippine Ports Authority WHEREAS, the plea of the Association has been
and Simeon T. Silva, Jr., in his capacity as the South echoed by a great number of Members of
Harbor Manager, Philippine Ports Authority v. Hon. Parliament and other persons and groups;
Napoleon Flojo, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge
of Branch 2, RTC, Manila, UHPAP and MPA). NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS,
President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers
Pending resolution of this case, the Court ordered vested in me by the Constitution and by law, do
the parties to maintain the status quo as of October hereby direct and order:
31, 1992.
Sec. 1. The following shall be the rate of pilotage
II. THE ISSUES AND THEIR fees or charges based on tonnage for services
DISPOSITION rendered to both foreign and coastwise vessels;
Moreover, an inquiry into legislative motivation is We conclude that E.O. No. 1088 is a valid statute and
not proper since the only relevant question is that the PPA is duty bound to comply with its
whether in issuing it the President violated provisions. The PPA may increase the rates but it
constitutional and statutory restrictions on his may not decrease them below those mandated by
power. The PPA did not have any objection to the E.O. No. 1088. Finally, the PPA cannot refuse to
order based on constitutional ground. In fact the implement E.O. No. 1088 or alter it as it did in
nearest to a challenge on constitutional grounds was promulgating Memorandum Circular No. 43-86.
that mounted not by the PPA but by the intervenors Much less could the PPA abrogate the rates fixed
below which claimed that the rates fixed in E.O. No. and leave the fixing of rates for pilotage service to
1088 were exorbitant and unreasonable. However, the contracting parties as it did through A. O. No. 02-
both the trial court and the Court of Appeals 88, §3. Theretofore the policy was one of
overruled the objections and the intervenors governmental regulation of the pilotage business. By
apparently accepted the ruling because they did not leaving the matter to the determination of the
appeal further to this Court. parties, the PPA jettisoned this policy and changed it
to laissez-faire, something which only the legislature,
There is therefore, no legal basis for PPA's or whoever is vested with lawmaking authority,
intransigence, after failing to get the new could do.
administration of President Aquino to revoke the
order by issuing its own order in the form of A.O. No. B. Whether the Court of Appeals had
02-88. It is noteworthy that if President Marcos had Jurisdiction over the
legislative power under Amendment No. 6 of the Appeal of Intervenors from the Decision of
1973 Constitution 12 so did President Aquino under the
the Provisional (Freedom) Constitution 13 who could, Trial Court Invalidating Administrative
had she thought E.O. No. 1088 to be a mere Order No. 02-88 of the PPA
"political gimmick," have just as easily revoked her (G.R. No. 100481)
predecessor's order. It is tempting to ask if the
administrative agency would have shown the same The Court of Appeals dismissed the joint appeal of
act of defiance of the President's order had there the government and the intervenors from the trial
been no change of administration. What this Court court's decision in Civil Case No. 88-44726 on the
said in La Perla Cigar and Cigarette Factory ground that the issues raised were purely legal
v.Capapas, 14 mutatis mutandis may be applied to questions. 15 The appellate court stated:
the cases at bar:
After a painstaking review of the
Was it within the powers of the records We resolved to dismiss the
then Collector Ang-angco to refuse petition for lack of jurisdiction.
to collect the duties that must be
paid? That is the crucial point of From the facts, it is clear that the
inquiry. We hold that it was not. main issue proffered by the
appellant is whether or not the
Precisely, he had to give the above respondent Philippine Ports
legal provisions, quite explicit in Authority could validly issue rules
character, force and effect. His and regulations adopting the
obligation was to collect the "open pilotage policy" pursuant to
revenue for the government in its charter (P.D. 857).
accordance with existing legal
provisions, executive xxx xxx xxx
It must be noted that while the dismissal can only mean that the Supreme Court
court a quo had clearly recognized agrees with the findings and conclusions of the Court
the intricate legal issue involved, it of Appeals or that the decision sought to be
nevertheless decided it on the reviewed is correct. 17
merits which apparently resolved
only the procedural aspect that It is significant to note that the Secretary of
justified it in declaring the Transportation and Communications and the PPA,
questioned order as null and void. petitioners in G.R. No. 100109, have conceded the
While We recognize the basic finality of the dismissal of their appeal. 18 Thus, the
requirements of due process, the administrative policy, the validity of which herein
same cannot take precedence in petitioners seek to justify by their appeal, has
the case at bar in lieu of the fact already been abandoned by the very administrative
that the resolution of the present agency which adopted it, with the result that the
case is purely a legal question. question of validity of A.O. No. 02-88 is now moot
and academic.
Moreover, it appears that
appellants in the court below had C. Whether the Trial Court has Jurisdiction
filed a manifestation and motion to Hear and
waiving their presentation of Decide the Contempt Charges
evidence. Instead, they opted to against Petitioners
submit a comprehensive (G.R. No. 107720)
memorandum of the case on the
ground that the pivotal issue raised As already noted, following the dismissal of the
in the petition below is purely legal government's appeal in G.R. No. 100109, the PPA
in character. (p. 231, Records) abandoned A.O. No. 02-88 which provided for "Open
Pilotage System." But it subsequently promulgated
At this juncture, We are at a loss Administrative Order No. 05-92, under which the
why appellants had elevated the PPA assumed the power of scheduling and assigning
present action before Us where at pilots to service vessels, allegedly regardless of
the outset they already noted that whether the pilots assigned are or are not members
the issue is purely legal. of the UHPAP and the MPA which theretofore had
been the exclusive agencies rendering pilotage
If in the case of Murillo service in Philippine ports. The UHPAP and the MPA
v. Consul (UDK-9748, Resolution en saw the adoption of this system as a return to the
banc, March 1, 1990) the Supreme "Open Pilotage System" and, therefore, a violation of
Court laid down the rule that "if an the trial court's decision invalidating the "Open
appeal by notice of appeal is taken Pilotage System." They considered this to be a
from the Regional Trial Court to contempt of the trial court.
the Court of Appeals, and in the
latter Court, the appellant raised Petitioners moved to dismiss the motions for
naught but issues of law, the contempt against them. They contend that even if
appeal should be dismissed for lack the motions were filed as incidents of Civil Case No.
of jurisdiction (page 5, Resolution 88-44726, the RTC-Manila, Branch 2 did not have
in Murillo)," then with more jurisdiction to hear them because the main case was
reason where as in the case at bar no longer before the court and the fact was that the
public-appellants thru the Office of contempt citation was not an incident of the case,
the Solicitor General in their not even of its execution, but a new matter raising a
memorandum manifested that the new cause of action which must be litigated in a
controversy has reference to the separate action, even as petitioners denied they had
pure legal question of the validity committed any contumacious act by the issuance of
of the questioned administrative A.O. No. 05-92.
order. Consequently, We have no
other recourse but to dismiss the Private respondents maintained that their petitions
petition on the strength of these were mere incidents of Civil Case No. 88-44726 and
pronouncements. that the trial court has jurisdiction because in fact
this Court had not yet remanded the case to the
As already stated, from this decision, both the court a quo for execution of its decision. Private
government and the intervenors separately brought respondents complain that petitioners are trying to
petitions for review to this Court. In G.R. No. 100109, circumvent the final and executory decision of the
the government's petition was dismissed for lack of court in Civil Case No. 88-44726, through the
showing that the appellate court committed issuance of A.O. No. 05-92.
reversible error. The dismissal of the government's
petition goes far to sustain the dismissal of the As already noted, however, the decision of the trial
intervenors' petition in G.R. No. 100481 for the court in Civil Case No. 88-44726 enjoined petitioners
review of the same decision of the Court of Appeals. from implementing the socalled "Open Pilotage
After all, the intervenors' petition is based on System" embodied in A.O. No. 02-88. If, as alleged,
substantially the same grounds as those stated in the A.O. No. 05-92 is in substance a reenactment of A.O.
government's petition. It is now settled that the No. 02-88, then there is basis for private
dismissal of a petition for review on certiorari is an
adjudication on the merits of a controversy. 16 Such
respondents' invocation of the trial court's
jurisdiction to punish for contempt.
III. JUDGMENT
SO ORDERED.