GR 133763; (November, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 133763 ; November 13, 2002
THE UNITED HARBOR PILOTS’ ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs. ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING LINES, INC., in its own behalf and in representation of its members and PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner United Harbor Pilots’ Association of the Philippines, Inc. (UHPAP) filed a petition for review on certiorari to secure nighttime and overtime pay for its members. The dispute arose from conflicting administrative orders regarding pilotage fees. On March 1, 1985, the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) issued Administrative Order (AO) No. 03-85, which included Section 16(c) mandating an additional charge of 100% for foreign vessels and 50% for coastwise vessels for pilotage services rendered between 1800H to 1600H, on Sundays, or Holidays (nighttime and overtime pay). Subsequently, on February 3, 1986, President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Executive Order No. 1088, providing uniform rates for pilotage services based on vessel tonnage and stating that the “rate for docking and undocking anchorage, conduction and shifting and other related special services is equal to 100%.” E.O. No. 1088 contained a repealing clause. PPA later issued resolutions (Nos. 1486, 1541, and 1554) disallowing overtime premium but authorizing reasonable night premium pay. Based on PPA Resolution No. 1486, respondent Association of International Shipping Lines, Inc. (AISL) refused to pay UHPAP’s claims for nighttime and overtime pay. AISL filed a petition for declaratory relief with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 36, Manila, which ruled in favor of AISL, declaring that PPA had no authority to impose, and UHPAP could not collect, any overtime or night shift differential, and that the rates in E.O. No. 1088 referred to the totality of pilotage services, not per maneuver. UHPAP appealed.
ISSUE
1. Whether Executive Order No. 1088 repealed the provisions of PPA Administrative Order No. 03-85 on payment of additional pay for holidays and premium pay for nighttime service.
2. Whether the rates fixed in E.O. No. 1088 are to be imposed on every pilotage movement or on the entire package of pilotage services.
3. Whether E.O. No. 1088 deprived PPA of its right to promulgate new rules and rates for payment of fees, including additional pay for holidays and premium pay for nighttime services.
RULING
1. No. Executive Order No. 1088 did not repeal the provisions of PPA AO No. 03-85 on nighttime and overtime pay. There is no irreconcilable inconsistency between the two. E.O. No. 1088 fixed the base rates for pilotage services based on tonnage, while PPA AO No. 03-85 provided for additional charges for services rendered under specific conditions (nighttime, Sundays, Holidays). The two can be harmonized, as the additional charges in PPA AO No. 03-85 are premiums on top of the base rates set by E.O. No. 1088. The repealing clause in E.O. No. 1088 applies only to prior issuances that are genuinely inconsistent with it.
2. The rates fixed in E.O. No. 1088 are to be imposed on every pilotage movement or service, not on the entire package of pilotage services. The Supreme Court interpreted the phrase “rate for docking and undocking anchorage, conduction and shifting and other related special services is equal to 100%” to mean that each of these services—docking, undocking anchorage, conduction, shifting—is compensated at 100% of the rate prescribed in the schedule based on tonnage. Therefore, separate fees may be charged for each distinct pilotage service rendered.
3. No. Executive Order No. 1088 did not deprive PPA of its right to promulgate new rules and rates. Citing Philippine Interisland Shipping Association of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held that PPA retains the power to fix pilotage rates and regulate pilotage services under Presidential Decree No. 857. PPA is at liberty to fix new rates, subject only to the limitation that such rates should not go below those fixed under E.O. No. 1088. Thus, PPA may impose additional charges like nighttime and overtime pay.
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Decision of the Regional Trial Court.