Corona vs. United Harbor Pilots Association of The Phils
Corona vs. United Harbor Pilots Association of The Phils
Corona vs. United Harbor Pilots Association of The Phils
*
G.R. No. 111953. December 12, 1997.
_______________
* EN BANC.
32
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168df7cc4472a59b9d1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/15
2/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 283
33
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168df7cc4472a59b9d1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/15
2/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 283
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168df7cc4472a59b9d1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/15
2/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 283
34
ROMERO, J.:
35
1
pilots and the 2pilotage profession, the PPA promulgated
PPA-AO 03-85 on March 21, 1985, which embodied the
“Rules and Regulations Governing Pilotage Services, the
Conduct of Pilots and Pilotage Fees in Philippine Ports.”
These rules mandate, inter 3
alia, that aspiring pilots must
be holders of pilot licenses and must train as probationary
pilots in outports for three months and in the Port of
Manila for four months. It 4
is only after they have achieved
satisfactory performance that they are given5 permanent
and regular appointments by the PPA itself to exercise
harbor pilotage until they reach the age of 70, unless sooner
removed by reason of mental
6
or physical unfitness by the
PPA General Manager. Harbor pilots in every harbor
district are further required to organize themselves into
pilot associations which would make available such
equipment as may be required by the PPA for effective
pilotage services. In view of this mandate, pilot
associations invested in floating, communications, and
office equipment. In fact, every new pilot appointed by the
PPA automatically becomes a member of a pilot association
and is required to pay a proportionate equivalent equity or
capital before being allowed to assume his duties, as
reimbursement to the association concerned of the amount
it paid to his predecessor.
Subsequently, then PPA General 7
Manager Rogelio A.
Dayan issued PPA-AO No. 04-92 on July 15, 1992, whose
_______________
1 Pilotage is the act of conducting a vessel from the high seas into a
port. Usually, pilotage is conducted within a two-mile area offshore to an
assigned berthing area and vice versa.
2 Rollo, p. 87.
3 The pilot licensing function itself which used to be exercised by the
Philippine Coast Guard pursuant to the Revised Coast Guard Law of 1974
(P.D. No. 601) has been transferred to the Maritime Industry Authority
(MARINA) by virtue of Executive Order No. 125, which took effect on
January 30, 1987.
4 Determined by an Evaluation Committee.
5 Upon the recommendation of the PPA General Manager.
6 Article IV, Section 20.
7 Rollo, p. 41.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168df7cc4472a59b9d1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/15
2/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 283
36
_______________
8 Ibid., p. 42.
9 Qualifying factors are requirements which must be met before a
pilot’s application for reappointment is even evaluated by the PPA.
10 These criteria are used for evaluation by the PPA after a pilot has
complied with all the requirements to qualify for evaluation. Each
criterion is assigned a certain number of points.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168df7cc4472a59b9d1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/15
2/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 283
37
cia insisted on his position that the matter was within the
jurisdiction of the Board of Directors of the PPA. Compas
appealed this ruling to the Office of the President (OP),
reiterating his arguments before the DOTC.
On December 23, 1992 the OP issued an order directing
the PPA to hold in abeyance the implementation of PPA-
AO No. 04-92. In its answer, the PPA countered that said
administrative order was issued in the exercise of its
administrative control and supervision over harbor pilots
under Section 6-a (viii), Article IV of P.D. No. 857, as
amended, and it, along with its implementing guidelines,
was intended to restore order in the ports and to improve
the quality of port services.
On March 17, 1993, the OP, through then Assistant
Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs Renato C. Corona,
dismissed the appeal/petition
11
and lifted the restraining
order issued earlier. He concluded that PPA-AO No. 04-92
applied to all harbor pilots and, for all intents and
purposes, was not the act of Dayan, but of the PPA, which
was merely implementing Section 6 of P.D. No. 857,
mandating it “to control, regulate and supervise pilotage
and conduct of pilots in any port district.”
On the alleged unconstitutionality and illegality of PPA-
AO No. 04-92 and its implementing memoranda and
circulars, Secretary Corona opined that:
_______________
38
No costs.
SO ORDERED.”
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168df7cc4472a59b9d1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/15
2/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 283
39
_______________
40
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168df7cc4472a59b9d1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/15
2/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 283
14
enforced, is fair, reasonable, and just.” PPA-AO No. 04-92
must be examined in light of this distinction.
Respondents argue that due process was not observed in
the adoption of PPA-AO No. 04-92 allegedly because no
hearing was conducted whereby “relevant government
agencies” and the pilots themselves could ventilate their
views. They are obviously referring to the procedural
aspect of the enactment. Fortunately, the Court has
maintained a clear position in this regard, a stance it has15
stressed in the recent case of Lumiqued v. Hon. Exevea,
where it declared that “(a)s long as a party was given the
opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he cannot
be said to have been denied due process of law, for this
opportunity to be heard is the very essence of due process.
Moreover, this constitutional mandate is deemed satisfied
if a person is granted an opportunity to seek
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.”
In the case at bar, respondents
16
questioned PPA-AO No.
04-92 no less than four times before the matter was finally
elevated to this Tribunal. Their arguments on this score,
however, fail to persuade. While respondents emphasize
that the Philippine Coast Guard, “which issues the licenses
of pilots after 17
administering the pilots’ examinations,” was
not consulted, the facts show that the MARINA, which
took over the licensing function of the Philippine Coast
Guard, was duly represented in the Board of Directors of
the PPA. Thus, petitioners correctly argued that, there
being no matters of naval defense involved in the issuance
of the administrative 18
order, the Philippine Coast Guard
need to be consulted.
_______________
41
Neither does the fact that the pilots themselves were not
consulted in any way taint the validity of the
administrative order. As a general rule, notice and hearing,
as the fundamental requirements of procedural due
process, are essential only when an administrative body
exercises its quasi-judicial function. In the performance of
its executive or legislative functions, such as issuing rules
and regulations, an administrative body need 19
not comply
with the requirements of notice and hearing.
Upon the other hand, it is also contended that the sole
and exclusive right to the exercise of harbor pilotage by
pilots is a settled issue. Respondents aver that said right
has become vested and can only be “withdrawn or
shortened” by observing the constitutional mandate of due
process of law. Their argument has thus shifted from the
procedural to one of substance. It is here where PPA-AO
No. 04-92 fails to meet the condition set by the organic law.
There is no dispute that pilotage as a profession has
taken on the nature of a property right. Even petitioner
Corona recognized this when he stated in his March 17,
1993, decision that “(t)he exercise of one’s profession falls
within the constitutional guarantee against wrongful
deprivation of,
20
or interference with, property rights without
due process.” He merely expressed the opinion that “(i)n
the limited context of this case, PPA-AO 04-92 does not
constitute a wrongful interference with, let alone a
wrongful deprivation of, the property rights of those
affected thereby, and that “PPA-AO 04-92 does not forbid,
but merely regulates, the exercise by harbor pilots of their
profession.” As will be presently demonstrated, such
supposition is gravely erroneous and tends to perpetuate
an administrative order which is not only unreasonable but
also superfluous.
Pilotage, just like other professions, may be practiced
only by duly licensed individuals. Licensure is “the
granting of
_______________
42
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168df7cc4472a59b9d1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/15
2/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 283
_______________
43
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168df7cc4472a59b9d1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/15
2/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 283
_______________
23 Rollo, p. 65.
44
——o0o——
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168df7cc4472a59b9d1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/15