GR L 73705; (August, 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, and the government never spent on the river channel’s maintenance. After PPA denied its requests for reconsideration, petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), 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. Only then did petitioner file an appeal with 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 right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in the manner prescribed by law. Petitioner’s mistaken recourse to the CTA and the Supreme Court did not toll the reglementary period. The PPA was empowered under its charter, Presidential Decree No. 857, to promulgate rules, including Administrative Order No. 13-77 which prescribed the appeal period and was duly published. Petitioner’s failure to timely appeal to the Office of the President stemmed from its own negligence, not from ignorance of the procedure. Furthermore, even if the appeal were given due course, petitioner’s substantive claims 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 arrastre services, as authorized by PPA’s charter. The petition was dismissed.