GR L 44674; (February, 1983) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-44674 February 28, 1983
AVENUE ARRASTRE AND STEVEDORING CORPORATION, INC., as successor to Puerto Princesa City Arrastre and Stevedores’ Union, petitioner, vs. The HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, The HONORABLE SECRETARY OF FINANCE, THE PRUDENTIAL CUSTOMS BROKERAGE SERVICES, INC., respondents.
FACTS
The Puerto Princesa City Arrastre and Stevedores’ Union (PPCASU) originally operated the arrastre and stevedoring service in the Port of Puerto Princesa under a temporary permit from the Commissioner of Customs. Despite documented operational deficiencies, its permit was renewed several times from December 1974 to March 1976, based on its commitments to improve. On March 18, 1976, the Commissioner terminated PPCASU’s permit and authorized Prudential Brokerage Services, Inc. to take over, citing a report from the local Collector of Customs. This report detailed PPCASU’s lack of capitalization and equipment, failure to remit SSS contributions, non-payment of permits, non-posting of a bond, and use of an illegal “Pakway System” for labor payments.
Petitioner Avenue Arrastre and Stevedoring Corporation, Inc., claiming to be PPCASU’s successor due to a merger, moved for reconsideration of the termination order. This motion was denied by the Commissioner of Customs. Petitioner subsequently appealed to the Secretary of Finance, who affirmed the Commissioner’s decision. Having exhausted administrative remedies, petitioner filed the instant petition for mandamus to compel the reinstatement or renewal of the operating permit.
ISSUE
Whether a writ of mandamus is the proper remedy to review and set aside the discretionary decision of the Commissioner of Customs, as affirmed by the Secretary of Finance, to terminate an arrastre service permit and award it to another operator.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that mandamus is not the appropriate remedy. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of the writ of mandamus and the discretionary powers of administrative officials. Mandamus is a command issued to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, not to control or review the exercise of discretion. The grant, renewal, or termination of an arrastre service permit is a discretionary function vested by law in the Commissioner of Customs. This discretion was exercised based on factual findings of PPCASU’s gross inefficiency, financial incapacity, and violations of labor laws.
The Court emphasized that even assuming petitioner had a privilege to seek renewal, such privilege was subject to the sound discretion of the public officials. Their refusal to grant continuance, founded on substantive evidence of poor performance and legal non-compliance, is not a ministerial act subject to compulsion by mandamus. Furthermore, mandamus requires the petitioner to demonstrate a clear and certain legal right to the relief sought. Petitioner failed to establish such a right, as its claim was contingent upon a discretionary administrative approval. The Court upheld the consistent doctrine that mandamus does not lie to direct the manner of exercising judgment or to alter a decision made within the bounds of official discretion.