Case Summary (G.R. No. 262362)
Factual and Procedural Background
BOCEA challenged CAO 7-2011 and subsequent memoranda that (1) prescribed continuous 24-hour operations via three 8-hour shifts, and (2) prohibited charging overtime pay to private entities (airlines, shippers) by reallocating such costs to the national government. The petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction invoked grave abuse of discretion under Rule 65, seeking invalidation of the issuances on constitutional, statutory and administrative grounds.
Issues Presented
- Whether direct recourse via Rule 65 to the Supreme Court was proper.
- Whether respondents gravely abused discretion in:
a. Instituting a 24/7 shifting schedule;
b. Restricting overtime pay to government funds, excluding private users.
Expanded Certiorari Jurisdiction
Under Article VIII, Section 1(2) of the 1987 Constitution, the Court may settle actual controversies and correct grave abuse of discretion by any government instrumentality. The petition fell within this expanded certiorari jurisdiction, extending beyond purely supervisory writ functions.
Procedural Requirements and Court’s Discretion
Although Rule 65 ordinarily mandates filing in the lowest court of concurrent jurisdiction (Court of Appeals) and exhaustion of administrative remedies (reconsideration by the Commissioner of Customs, appeal to the Secretary of Finance, elevation to the Office of the President), the Court exercised its discretion to decide on the merits due to long-standing litigation on Customs overtime pay.
Validity of CAO 7-2011 (Shifting Schedule)
CAO 7-2011’s implementation of three rotating 8-hour shifts and limitation of overtime to weekends and holidays constituted a valid exercise of the Executive’s inherent ordinance-making power over its personnel. It was reasonable, within constitutional bounds, and unaffected by any legal prohibition.
Invalidity of August 2012 Memoranda and CMC No. 195-2012
The directives disallowing private entities from paying Customs employees’ overtime conflicted with TCCP § 3506, which unambiguously entrusted importers, shippers or other persons served (including airline companies) with overtime payments at rates not less than those in private enterprises. The Supreme Court’s decision in Carbonilla et al. v. Board of Airline Representatives confirmed that Congress intended private users, not all taxpayers, to bear such costs.
Legislative Supersession by RA 10863
On 16 June 2016, RA 10863 (Customs Modernization and Tariff Act) repealed TCCP § 3506 and enacted § 1508, shifting overtime payment responsibility to the Bureau of Customs itself, with rates fixed by the Commissioner and approved by the Secretary of Finance. This policy change by Congress is not subject to judicial review.
Prejudice and Evidentiary Considerations
From 1 August 2012 until 16 June 2016, the national government
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 262362)
Antecedent Facts
- On July 15, 2011, Customs Administrative Order (CAO) No. 7-2011 prescribed three eight-hour shifts for continuous 24-hour service at Ninoy Aquino International Airport and other ports of entry, including a night-shift differential policy.
- On August 3, 2012, Secretary of Finance Purisima issued a memorandum directing the Bureau of Customs (BOC) to extend the 24/7 shifting schedule to all ports, prohibit charging overtime pay to private entities, and require that any overtime pay be borne by the national government.
- On August 10, 2012, Commissioner Biazon reiterated the 24/7 schedule and ordered that overtime pay be charged only to the government, effective August 1, 2012.
- On August 28, 2012, Customs Memorandum Circular (CMC) No. 195-2012 informed all BOC personnel of the 24/7 shifting schedule to address airline complaints about paying government personnel overtime.
- On March 7, 2013, BOCEA filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and injunction before the Supreme Court to invalidate the above issuances, contending they worsened the economic condition of customs employees and were unconstitutional, illegal, and issued with grave abuse of discretion.
Petitioners’ Contentions
- The issuances violate Article VI, Sections 1 and 29(1) of the 1987 Constitution by usurping legislative power and exceeding respondents’ authority.
- The orders conflict with Section 3506 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP), which delegated to the Commissioner the power to fix overtime rates and assigned liability to “importers, shippers or other persons served.”
- The directives contravene labor laws by depriving employees of lawful overtime compensation.
- The memoranda were issued with grave abuse of discretion and without due process, leaving customs personnel with no plain, speedy or adequate remedy.
Respondents’ Arguments
- The petition is procedurally deficient and should be dismissed for improper invocation of certiorari and prohibition.
- The challenged administrative issuances were validly issued under respondents’ administrative authority over BOC personnel.
- The Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a Rule 65 petition against purely executive or administrative actions without first resorting to the lower courts.
Issues
- Whether the petition for certiorari, prohibition, and injunction under Rule 65 is the proper remedy or is barred by procedural requisites