Case Digest (G.R. No. 193247)
Facts:
Sergio I. Carbonilla, Emilio Y. Legaspi IV, and Adonais Y. Rejuso v. Board of Airlines Representatives, G.R. Nos. 193247 and 194276, September 14, 2011, Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.The controversy arises from Customs Administrative Order No. 1-2005 (CAO 1-2005), an amendment to CAO 7-92, promulgated by the Bureau of Customs (BOC) pursuant to Section 3506 in relation to Section 608 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP). The Department of Finance (DOF) approved CAO 1-2005. The Amendatory CAO adjusted overtime pay and related allowances for BOC personnel assigned to Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA), triggering objections from the Board of Airlines Representatives (BAR) and its member airlines, who said they first learned of the proposed increase only through informal channels and later sent letters of protest and requests for meetings.
BAR sent letters to the BOC and to the DOF in 2005; the Acting District Collector informed BAR that the DOF had approved CAO 1-2005 and that it became effective on 16 March 2005. BAR sought review from the DOF, and after an advisory letter of the DOF on 31 August 2006, BAR elevated the matter to the Office of the President by letters in December 2006; Deputy Executive Secretary Manuel B. Gaite required BAR to pay an appeal fee and submit an appeal memorandum, which BAR did. In a Decision dated 12 March 2007 the Office of the President denied BAR’s appeal, affirming the DOF’s position; BAR’s motion for reconsideration was denied on 14 March 2008.
Separately, a group of BOC personnel (Carbonilla, et al.) claimed unpaid differential overtime under CAO 1-2005 and moved to intervene in BAR’s case before the Court of Appeals; the Court of Appeals denied intervention in a 26 February 2009 resolution on the ground that the intervenors sought collection of unpaid wages and their interests should be pursued in a separate action. BAR filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 (appeal from quasi-judicial agencies). In a decision promulgated 9 July 2009, the Court of Appeals set aside the Office of the President’s 12 March 2007 Decision and 14 March 2008 Resolution, and declared Section 3506 of the TCCP, CAO 7-92 and CAO 1-2005 unenforceable against BAR on grounds including overbroad delegation, failure of completeness and sufficiency, and that certain allowances constituted double compensation forbidden by Section 8, Article IX(B) of the 1987 Constitution. The Court of Appeals ordered the appealed administrative rulings set aside.
The BOC personnel (Carbonilla, et al.) moved for reconsideration of the denial of intervention and of the CA decision; the CA denied their motion in a 5 August 2010 resolution. The Court of Appeals later issued a 12 May 2010 resolution directing BAR to continue compliance with the Office of the President’s 12 March 2007 Decision pending finality; BAR sought reconsideration, and on 26 October 2010 the CA granted BAR’s motion for reconsideration and denied the Office of the President’s motion for reconsideration.
Two petitions for review reached the Supreme Court under Rule 45: (a) Carbonilla, et al. v. BAR (G.R. No. 193247)...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the Court of Appeals’ denial of intervention to Carbonilla, et al. reversible?
- Did the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to entertain BAR’s petition for review from the Office of the President?
- Was BAR’s administrative appeal to the Office of the President filed within the period prescribed under Administrative Order No. 18?
- Were the verifications and certifications of non-forum shopping executed by some BAR member airlines’ officers defective for lack of proper authorization?
- Are BAR and its member airlines barred by laches or estoppel from challenging CAO 1-2005?
- Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in declaring Section 35...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)