G.R. No. 196199 /G.R. No. 196252, December 7, 2021
MANILA INTERNATIONAL PORTS TERMINAL, INC. vs. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY and PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY vs. MANILA INTERNATIONAL PORTS TERMINAL, INC.

FACTS

Manila International Ports Terminal, Inc. (MIPTI) was granted a franchise by Presidential Decree No. 634 (PD 634), as amended by PD 1284, to operate container terminals and related facilities at North Harbor. PD 1284 empowered the President to revoke or suspend MIPTI’s franchise and authorized the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) to conduct periodic inspections and audits of MIPTI’s operations and, if warranted, recommend suspension or revocation to the President. MIPTI and PPA entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) implementing these provisions. In June-July 1986, PPA notified MIPTI of alleged violations, including poor performance, illegal practices, and unilateral rate increases. MIPTI denied the allegations. On July 19, 1986, President Corazon Aquino issued Executive Order No. 30 (EO 30) revoking MIPTI’s franchise effective immediately upon its publication on July 21, 1986. PPA took over MIPTI’s operations and properties on July 21, 1986, and subsequently engaged another private company to manage the port. PPA admitted it recommended the revocation to protect public interest.

ISSUE

The primary issue in the Concurring and Dissenting Opinion is whether the ponencia correctly declared EO 30 unconstitutional, the takeover illegal, and awarded damages to MIPTI.

RULING

Justice Lazaro-Javier, in her Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, disagrees with the ponencia’s declaration that EO 30 is unconstitutional and the takeover illegal, and its award of nominal and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs to MIPTI. She agrees with the ponencia’s order for MIPTI to return excess rentals to the government and the denial of MIPTI’s claim for unrealized profits. The opinion argues that EO 30 was issued pursuant to the valid statutory authority under PD 634, as amended by PD 1284, which expressly granted the President the power to revoke MIPTI’s franchise. The swift revocation process did not necessarily violate due process, as the power exercised was executive in nature, grounded on a prior legislative franchise that contained the revocation condition. The opinion implies that the revocation was a valid exercise of executive power under the franchise terms and in response to public necessity, and therefore, the subsequent takeover by PPA was likewise legal. Consequently, the award of damages against PPA is deemed improper.