Case Digest (G.R. No. L-48304)
Facts:
Philippine Ports Authority v. Hon. Rafael L. Mendoza, G.R. No. L-48304, September 11, 1985, Supreme Court En Banc, Alampay, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA); the public respondent is Hon. Rafael L. Mendoza, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch VI; the private respondents are eighteen arrastre operators led by Pernito Arrastre Services, Inc. (collectively, Pernito, et al.), and United South Dockhandlers, Inc. (USDI) later intervened in the Supreme Court proceedings.Prior to martial law the arrastre/stevedoring industry was disordered; an Ad Hoc Committee (1973) recommended integration of port cargo-handling services under a single contractor per port. The Bureau of Customs implemented staged mergers (May 8, 1975, Memorandum Order No. 28-75) consolidating many small contractors into ten corporations (later eleven). The PPA was created by PD 505 and its powers later expanded by PD 857 (Dec. 23, 1975), which transferred certain Bureau of Customs functions to PPA; PPA adopted integration as policy (Resolution No. 10, May 4, 1976) and issued Memorandum Order No. 21 (May 27, 1977) requiring contractors in a port to merge into one organization within a prescribed period.
The eleven major contractors in Cebu agreed to merge and in October 1977 formed USDI, which the PPA recognized and gave a special permit (Nov. 4, 1977). Pernito, et al. alleged they initially joined mergers and operated under permits of larger licensees (e.g., Pernito under the permit of Vismin Stevedores & Forwarders, Inc.), but later seceded from USDI when, they say, controlling interests reneged on promises. Pernito sought separate permits but were denied by PPA because of the integration policy.
On February 27, 1977 Pernito, et al. filed in the Court of First Instance of Cebu Civil Case No. R-16829 for declaratory relief, mandamus and injunctive relief against PPA and USDI. On March 31, 1978 the respondent judge issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining PPA from enforcing its integration policy and directing that Pernito, et al. be allowed to operate individually; on April 17, 1978 the judge allowed two additional arrastre services to intervene and share the injunction’s benefits without prior notice or hearing. PPA then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
While the petition was pending the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order (May 30, 1978) enjoining respondents from giving effect to the questioned trial-court orders; that restraining order was confirmed June 6, 1978 and later modified July 24, 1979 to lift the stay on the trial court’s hearing of Civil Case No. R-16829. USDI sought to intervene in the Supreme Court petition ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the respondent judge commit a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when he issued the preliminary injunctions and allowed intervention without notice and hearing?
- Does the PPA have the statutory power to require the integration of arrastre and stevedoring services in Philippine ports?
- Is PPA’s policy of compulsory merger unconstitutional or otherwise void as violative of Section 2, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution and Section 20 of Act No. 3518?
- Did the questioned orders restore the proper status quo or otherw...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)