G.R. No. 205836. July 12, 2022.
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (BOCEA), REPRESENTED BY ITS NATIONAL PRESIDENT MR. ROMULO A. PAGULAYAN, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ROZZANO RUFINO B. BIAZON (IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF CUSTOMS), ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The Bureau of Customs Employees Association (BOCEA) filed a petition seeking to invalidate several administrative issuances that altered the long-standing practice of charging private entities for overtime work rendered by Customs personnel. The assailed issuances included Customs Administrative Order (CAO) No. 7-2011, which prescribed a 24/7 shifting schedule at airports, and subsequent memoranda from the Finance Secretary and Customs Commissioner. These directives mandated that overtime pay be shouldered by the national government at official rates, expressly prohibiting personnel from charging or accepting any payment from private airlines and other entities for such work.
BOCEA argued that the discontinuance of the practice economically prejudiced its members. It contended the issuances were unconstitutional and illegal for violating the constitutional provisions on appropriation, being repugnant to the Tariff and Customs Code, contrary to labor laws, and issued with grave abuse of discretion and without due process. The respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, countered that the petition was procedurally infirm and that the issuances were validly issued pursuant to administrative authority.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the direct recourse to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari was proper; and (2) whether the respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the administrative orders and memoranda implementing a 24/7 shifting schedule and prohibiting the charging of overtime pay to private entities.

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. On procedural grounds, the Court held that the petition properly invoked its expanded certiorari jurisdiction under the Constitution, which allows it to determine whether any branch or instrumentality of the government committed grave abuse of discretion. On the merits, the Court upheld the validity of CAO No. 7-2011, ruling that the implementation of a 24/7 shifting schedule was a valid exercise of administrative prerogative to ensure continuous service.
However, the Court declared the subsequent memoranda (dated August 3, 2012, August 10, 2012, and CMC No. 195-2012) invalid for the period from their effectivity on August 1, 2012, until June 16, 2016 (the effectivity of the Customs Modernization and Tariff Act or CMTA). The legal logic centered on the explicit mandate of Section 3506 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP), which was the governing law at that time. This provision expressly required that overtime compensation for Customs services be paid by the interested party (e.g., importer, shipper, or airline), not by the government. The respondents’ issuances, which shifted the payment burden to the national government, directly contravened this statutory command. Therefore, they were issued without legal basis and in grave abuse of discretion. The Court ruled that prior to the CMTA’s effectivity, the old law governed, and overtime pay should continue to be charged to the private entities served. Any claims for monetary differences resulting from the invalidated policy were deemed evidentiary matters to be ventilated in the proper forums.