easternshippingvca
of 1
Transcript of easternshippingvca
-
8/7/2019 easternshippingvca
1/1
EASTERNSHIPPINGLINES,INC.vsCAandDAVAOPILOTSASSOCIATIONG.R.No.116356;June29,1998
Facts: OnSeptember25,1989,privaterespondentelevatedacomplaintagainstpetitionerforsumofmoneyandattorney'sfeesallegingthatprivaterespondenthadrenderedpilotageservicestopetitionerbetweenwithtotalunpaidfeesofP703,290.18.
Despiterepeateddemands,petitionerfailedtopayandpraysthatthelatterbedirectedtopayP703,290.18withlegalrateofinterestfromthefilingofthecomplaint.OnNovember18,1989petitionerdisputedtheclaimsofprivaterespondentassailingtheconstitutionalityofEO1088uponwhichitbasesitsclaims;thatthesubjectofthecomplaintfallswithinthescopeandauthorityofthePhilippinePortsAuthoritybyvirtueofPDNo.857;thatExecutiveOrderNo.1088isanunwarrantedrepealormodificationofthePhilippinePortsAuthorityCharter,amongothers.
PetitionerarguesthatEO1088isnotconstitutional,becauseitsinter
pretationandapplicationarelefttoprivaterespondent,aprivateperson,anditconstitutesanunduedelegationofpower.PetitionerinsiststhatitshouldpaypilotagefeesinaccordancewithandonthebasisofthememorandumcircularsissuedbythePPA,theadministrativebodyvestedunderPD857withthepowertoregulateandprescribepilotagefees.ItonpayingpilotagefeesprescribedunderPPAcircularsbecauseEO1088setsahigherrate.
Issues: WhetherExecutiveOrder1088isunconstitutional.
Held: No.ReiteratingthepronouncementoftheCourtinPhilippineInterislandShippingAssociationofthePhilippinesvs.CourtofAppeals,theCourtheldthatEO1088isvalid.E.O.NO.1088providesforadjustedpilotageservicerateswithoutwithdrawingthepowerofthePPAtoimpose,prescribe,increaseordecre
aserates,chargesorfees.ThereasonisbecauseE.O.No.1088isnotmeantsimplytofixnewpilotagerates.Itslegislativepurposeisthe"rationalizationofpilotageservicecharges,throughtheimpositionofuniformandadjustedratesforforeignandcoastwisevesselsinallPhilippineports.
PetitionercannotinsistonpayingpilotagefeesbasedonthePPAcircularsbecausethePPAcircularsareinconsistentwithEO1088,theyarevoidandineffective."Administrativeorexecutiveacts,ordersandregulationsshallbevalidonlywhentheyarenotcontrarytothelawsortheConstitution."AsstatedbytheCourtinLandBankofthePhilippinesvs.CourtofAppeals,"theconclusiveeffectofadministrativeconstructionisnotabsolute.Actionofanadministrativeagencymaybedisturbedorsetasidebythejudicialdepartmentifthere
isanerroroflaw,agraveabuseofpowerorlackofjurisdiction,orgraveabuseofdiscretionclearlyconflictingwitheithertheletterorspiritofthelaw."Itisaxiomaticthatanadministrativeagency,likethePPA,hasnodiscretionwhethertoimplementthelawornot.Itsdutyistoenforceit.
Therefore,ifthereisanyconflictbetweenthePPAcircularandalaw,suchasEO1088,thelatterprevails.
Inconclusion,theCourtmadeitclearthatE.O.No.1088isavalidstatuteandthatthePPAisdutyboundtocomplywithitsprovisions.ThePPAmayincreasetheratesbutitmaynotdecreasethembelowthosemandatedbyE.O.No.1088.
