Case Digest (G.R. No. 158000)
Facts:
The case involves the Association of International Shipping Lines, Inc. (AISLI) and the Philippine Ship Agents Association (PSAA) as petitioners against the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA), International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI), and Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI) as respondents. The events leading to the case began in October 2000 when ATI and ICTSI applied to the PPA for increases in stevedoring and arrastre charges for containerized and non-containerized cargoes at South Harbor and the Manila International Container Terminal (MICT). ATI requested a 32% increase, while ICTSI sought a 30% increase. The PPA scheduled a public hearing for October 27, 2000, which was later moved to November 8, 2000, where various stakeholders, including AISLI and PSAA, participated.
On December 19, 2000, the PPA Board Committee agreed in principle to grant a nationwide increase in cargo handling rates, with a tentative 10% increase effective February 2001 and another 10% in Ju...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 158000)
Facts:
Background of the Case:
- The case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by the Association of International Shipping Lines, Inc. (AISLI) and the Philippine Ship Agents Association (PSAA) against the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA), International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI), and Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI).
- The petitioners challenged the validity of Memorandum Circular No. 47-2001, which implemented an additional 10% increase in cargo handling tariff rates at South Harbor and Manila International Container Terminal (MICT).
Requests for Rate Increases:
- In October 2000, ATI and ICTSI applied to the PPA for increases in stevedoring and arrastre charges. ATI requested a 32% increase, while ICTSI sought a 30% increase.
- A public hearing was conducted on November 8, 2000, attended by representatives of ATI, ICTSI, PPA, port users (including AISLI and PSAA), and other stakeholders.
PPA Board Committee (BoardCom) Resolutions:
- On December 19, 2000, the PPA BoardCom agreed in principle to grant a nationwide increase in cargo handling rates, with a tentative 10% increase in February 2001 and another 10% in July 2001.
- On January 11, 2001, the BoardCom adopted Resolution No. 2001-761, approving the increases as follows:
- Arrastre: Foreign (10%), Domestic (10%)
- Stevedoring: Foreign (15%), Domestic (10%)
- The PPA Board of Directors confirmed this resolution during its 264th Regular Meeting.
Implementation of the Second Tranche of Increases:
- On December 20, 2001, the PPA Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 1897, authorizing the implementation of the second 10% increase, effective 15 days after publication.
- Memorandum Circular No. 47-2001 was issued on December 21, 2001, and published on December 28, 2001, taking effect on January 12, 2002.
Petitioners' Objections:
- AISLI and PSAA objected to the additional 10% increase, arguing that:
- There was no valid Board of Directors resolution supporting the January 2002 increase.
- No public hearing or notice was conducted for the second tranche of increases.
- The PPA suspended the implementation of the increase on January 22, 2002, but lifted the suspension on February 6, 2002, after addressing the concerns raised by the petitioners.
- AISLI and PSAA objected to the additional 10% increase, arguing that:
Issue:
Validity of the Additional 10% Increase:
- Whether the additional 10% increase in cargo handling tariff rates implemented in January 2002 was supported by a valid PPA Board Resolution.
- Whether the PPA BoardCom Resolution No. 2001-761, confirmed by Board Resolution No. 1858, could be used to support the January 2002 increase.
Due Process and Notice:
- Whether the PPA complied with the requirements of due process, including notice and hearing, before implementing the second tranche of increases.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the additional 10% increase in cargo handling tariff rates, finding that the PPA acted within its authority and complied with the requirements of due process. The petition was denied, and costs were imposed on the petitioners.