GR L 73705; (September, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-73705 August 27, 1987
VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC., petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ASSISTANT FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS and PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY, respondents.
FACTS
The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) required Victorias Milling Co. to subject its tugboats and barges to harbor formalities and pay corresponding fees, and to remit 10% of its gross income from cargo handling at its private wharf. Petitioner protested, claiming exemption because the wharf was built and maintained on its private land at its own expense without government expenditure. After PPA denied its request for reconsideration, petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Tax Appeals, which dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction and recommended appeal to the Office of the President. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition with the Supreme Court, which was denied, before finally appealing to the Office of the President.
ISSUE
Whether the 30-day period to appeal under PPA Administrative Order No. 13-77 was tolled by the pendency of the petitions filed with the Court of Tax Appeals and the Supreme Court.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the appeal was correctly dismissed for being filed out of time. The legal logic is that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in strict accordance with the law. PPA, under its charter (Presidential Decree No. 857), was empowered to promulgate rules, including Administrative Order No. 13-77, which prescribed the 30-day period for appealing PPA decisions to the Office of the President. This order was duly published. Petitioner’s mistaken recourse to the Court of Tax Appeals and the Supreme Court did not toll the reglementary period, as ignorance or misapplication of the proper procedure does not excuse non-compliance. The Court emphasized that even assuming the appeal was timely, petitioner’s substantive claim lacked merit. The fees imposed were not for the use of the private wharf but for the privilege of navigating public waters and using public harbors, which the government maintains. The 10% share was a valid contractual condition for the permit to operate. Thus, the petition was dismissed.