Title
Supreme Court
Bureau of Customs Employees Association vs. Biazon
Case
G.R. No. 205836
Decision Date
Jul 12, 2022
BOCEA challenged BOC's overtime pay policies; SC upheld 24/7 shifts but invalidated memoranda barring private entities from paying overtime (2012-2016), citing TCCP violations.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 205836)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Petition and Parties
    • The Bureau of Customs Employees Association (BOCEA) filed on 7 March 2013 a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and injunction with application for a temporary restraining order, represented by its National President Mr. Romulo A. Pagulayan.
    • Respondents were Commissioner Rozzano Rufino B. Biazon (BOC), Secretary Cesar V. Purisima (Finance), former Secretary Mar A. Roxas (DOTC), and incumbent Secretary Joseph Emilio A. Abaya (DOTC).
  • Assailed Administrative Issuances
    • Customs Administrative Order (CAO) No. 7-2011 (15 July 2011): prescribes three 8-hour shifts for 24-hour service at NAIA and other international airports, including night‐shift differential policy.
    • Memorandum (3 August 2012 by Sec. Purisima): directs implementation of 24/7 schedule at all ports; prohibits charging private entities for overtime; requires BOC to pay overtime at government rates; bars personnel from accepting any private payment.
    • Memorandum (10 August 2012 by Comm’r Biazon): reiterates 24/7 shifting, mandates BOC payment of overtime, and orders cessation of charging private entities from 1 August 2012.
    • Customs Memorandum Circular (CMC) No. 195-2012 (28 August 2012 by Comm’r Biazon): informs all BOC officials of 24/7 shift implementation to address airline complaints over overtime charges.
  • Contentions of BOCEA
    • The issuances are unconstitutional, patently illegal, ultra vires, and violate:
      • Art. VI, Sec. 1 and Sec. 29(1) of the 1987 Constitution.
      • Section 3506 of the Tariff and Customs Code (TCCP).
      • Existing labor laws.
    • BOCEA claimed lack of any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy other than direct recourse to the Supreme Court.
  • Respondents’ Opposition
    • The petition is procedurally defective.
    • The issuances were validly issued within their administrative authority over BOC personnel.

Issues:

  • Propriety of Remedy
    • Whether a direct petition for certiorari, prohibition, and injunction under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail the administrative issuances.
    • Whether the petition complied with the principles of hierarchy of courts and exhaustion of administrative remedies.
  • Grave Abuse of Discretion
    • Whether respondents validly exercised their authority in prescribing the 24/7 shifting schedule and limiting overtime.
    • Whether prohibiting private entities from paying overtime violated Section 3506 of the TCCP and relevant jurisprudence.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.