Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 73705 August 27, 1987
VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC., petitioner,
vs.
OICE O T!E PRESI"ENTIAL ASSISTANT OR LEGAL AAIRS #$% P!ILIPPINE PORTS
AUT!ORIT&,respondents.

PARAS, J.:
This is a petition for revie on certiorari of the !ul" #$, %&'( Decision of the Office of the Presidential
)ssistant For *e+al )ffairs dis,issin+ the appeal fro, the adverse rulin+ of the Philippine Ports )uthorit"
on the sole +round that the sa,e as filed be"ond the re+le,entar" period.
On )pril #', %&'%, the Iloilo Port Mana+er of respondent Philippine Ports )uthorit" -PP) for short. rote
petitioner Victorias Millin+ /o., re0uirin+ it to have its tu+boats and bar+es under+o harbor for,alities and
pa" entrance1clearance fees as ell as berthin+ fees effective Ma" %, %&'%. PP), li2eise, re0uirin+
petitioner to secure a per,it for car+o handlin+ operations at its Da3an 4anua harf and re,it %56 of its
+ross inco,e for said operations as the +overn,ent7s share.
To these de,ands, petitioner sent to -#. letters, both dated !une #, %&'%, herein it ,aintained that it is
e8e,pt fro, pa"in+ PP) an" fee or char+e because9 -%. the harf and an its facilities ere built and
installed in its land: -#. repair and ,aintenance thereof ere and solel" paid b" it: -;. even the dred+in+
and ,aintenance of the Mali<ao River /hannel fro, =ui,aras Strait up to said private harf are bein+
done b" petitioner7s e0uip,ent and personnel: and -(. at no ti,e has the +overn,ent ever spent a sin+le
centavo for such activities. Petitioner further added that the harf as bein+ used ,ainl" to handle su+ar
purchased fro, district planters pursuant to e8istin+ ,illin+ a+ree,ents.
In repl", on Nove,ber ;, %&'%, PP) Iloilo sent petitioner a ,e,orandu, of PP)7s >8ecutive Officer,
Ma8i,o Du,lao, hich <ustified the PP)7s de,ands. Further re0uest for reconsideration as denied on
!anuar" %(, %&'#.
On March #&, %&'#, petitioner served notice to PP) that it is appealin+ the case to the /ourt of Ta8
)ppeals: and accordin+l", on March ;%, %&'#, petitioner filed a Petition for Revie ith the said /ourt,
entitled ?Victorias Millin+ /o., Inc. v. Philippine Ports )uthorit",? and doc2eted therein as /T) /ase No.
;(@@.
On !anuar" %5, %&'(, the /ourt of Ta8 )ppeals dis,issed petitioner7s action on the +round that it has no
<urisdiction. It reco,,ended that the appeal be addressed to the Office of the President.
On !anuar" #;, %&'(, petitioner filed a Petition for Revie ith this /ourt, doc2eted as =.R. No. @@;'%, but
the sa,e as denied in a Resolution dated Februar" #&, %&'(.
On )pril #, %&'(, petitioner filed an appeal ith the Office of the President, but in a Decision dated !ul" #$,
%&'( -Record, p. ##., the sa,e as denied on the sole +round that it as filed be"ond the re+le,entar"
period. ) ,otion for Reconsideration as filed, but in an Order dated Dece,ber %@, %&'A, the sa,e as
denied -ibid., pp. ;3#%.9 Bence, the instant petition.
The Second Division of this /ourt, in a Resolution dated !une #, %&'@, resolved to re0uire the respondents
to co,,ent -ibid., p. (A.: and in co,pliance thereith, the Solicitor =eneral filed his /o,,ent on !une (,
%&'@ -Ibid., pp. A53A&..
In a Resolution of !ul" #, %&'@, petitioner as re0uired to file a repl" -Ibid., p. @%. but before receipt of said
resolution, the latter filed a ,otion on !ul" %, %&'@ pra"in+ that it be +ranted leave to file a repl" to
respondents7 /o,,ent, and an e8tension of ti,e up to !une ;5, %&'@ ithin hich to file the sa,e. - Ibid.,
p. @#..
On !ul" %', %&'@, petitioner filed its repl" to respondents7 /o,,ent -Ibid., pp. @'3$@..
The Second Division of this /ourt, in a Resolution dated )u+ust #A, %&'@, resolved to +ive due course to
the petition and to re0uire the parties to file their respective si,ultaneous ,e,oranda -Ibid., p. $'..
On October ', %&'@, the Solicitor =eneral filed a Manifestation and Re<oinder, statin+, a,on+ others, that
respondents are adoptin+ in toto their /o,,ent of !une ;, %&'@ as their ,e,orandu,: ith the
clarification that the assailed PP) )d,inistrative Order No. %;3$$ as dul" published in full in the
nationide circulated nespaper, ?The Ti,es !ournal?, on Nove,ber &,%&$$ -ibid., pp. $&3'%..
The sole le+al issue raised b" the petitioner is C
DB>TB>R OR NOT TB> ;53D)E P>RIOD FOR )PP>)* FNID>R S>/TION %;% OF PP)
)DMINISTR)TIV> ORD>R NO. %;3$$ D)S TO**>D 4E TB> P>ND>N/E OF TB> P>TITIONS FI*>D
FIRST DITB TB> /OFRT OF T)G )PP>)*S, )ND TB>N DITB TBIS BONOR)4*> TRI4FN)*.
The instant petition is devoid of ,erit.
Petitioner, in holdin+ that the recourse first to the /ourt of Ta8 )ppeals and then to this /ourt tolled the
period to appeal, sub,its that it as +uided, in +ood faith, b" considerations hich lead to the assu,ption
that procedural rules of appeal then enforced still hold true. It contends that hen Republic )ct No. %%#A
-creatin+ the /ourt of Ta8 )ppeals. as passed in %&AA, PP) as not "et in e8istence: and under the said
la, the /ourt of Ta8 )ppeals had e8clusive appellate <urisdiction over appeals fro, decisions of the
/o,,issioner of /usto,s re+ardin+, a,on+ others, custo,s duties, fees and other ,one" char+es
i,posed b" the 4ureau under the Tariff and /usto,s /ode. On the other hand, neither in Presidential
Decree No. A5A, creatin+ the PP) on !ul" %%, %&$( nor in Presidential Decree No. 'A$, revisin+ its charter
-said decrees, a,on+ others, ,erel" transferred to the PP) the poers of the 4ureau of /usto,s to
i,pose and collect custo,s duties, fees and other ,one" char+es concernin+ the use of ports and facilities
thereat. is there an" provision +overnin+ appeals fro, decisions of the PP) on such ,atters, so that it is
but reasonable to see2 recourse ith the /ourt of Ta8 )ppeals. Petitioner, li2eise, contends that an
anal"sis of Presidential Decree No. 'A$, shos that the PP) is vested ,erel" ith corporate poers and
duties -Sec. @., hich do not and can not include the poer to le+islate on procedural ,atters, ,uch less to
effectivel" ta2e aa" fro, the /ourt of Ta8 )ppeals the latter7s appellate <urisdiction.
These contentions are untenable for hile it is true that neither Presidential Decree No. A5A nor
Presidential Decree No. 'A$ provides for the re,ed" of appeal to the Office of the President, nevertheless,
Presidential Decree No. 'A$ e,poers the PP) to pro,ul+ate such rules as ould aid it in acco,plishin+
its purpose. Section @ of the said Decree provides C
Sec. @. /orporate Poers and Duties C
a. The corporate duties of the )uthorit" shall be9
888 888 888
-III. To prescribe rules and re+ulations, procedures, and +uidelines +overnin+
the establish,ent, construction, ,aintenance, and operation of all other
ports, includin+ private ports in the countr".
888 888 888
Pursuant to the afore0uoted provision, PP) enacted )d,inistrative Order No. %;3$$ precisel" to +overn,
a,on+ others, appeals fro, PP) decisions. It is no finall" settled that ad,inistrative rules and re+ulations
issued in accordance ith la, li2e PP) )d,inistrative Order No. %;3$$, have the force and effect of la
-Valerio vs. Secretar" of )+riculture and Natural Resources, $ S/R) $%&: )nti0ue Sa,ills, Inc. vs. Ha"co,
et al., %$ S/R) ;%@: and Macailin+ vs. )ndrada, ;% S/R) %#@., and are bindin+ on all persons dealin+
ith that bod".
)s to petitioner7s contention that )d,inistrative Order No. %;3$$, specificall" its Section %;%, onl" provides
for appeal hen the decision is adverse to the +overn,ent, orth ,entionin+ is the observation of the
Solicitor =eneral that petitioner ,isleads the /ourt. Said Section %;% provides C
Sec. %;%. Supervisor" )uthorit" of =eneral Mana+er and PP) 4oard. C If in an" case
involvin+ assess,ent of port char+es, the Port Mana+er1OI/ renders a decision adverse to
the +overn,ent, such decision shall auto,aticall" be elevated to, and revieed b", the
=eneral Mana+er of the authorit": and if the Port Mana+er7s decision ould be affir,ed b"
the =eneral Mana+er, such decision shall be sub<ect to further affir,ation b" the PP) 4oard
before it shall beco,e effective: Provided, hoever, that if ithin thirt" -;5. da"s fro,
receipt of the record of the case b" the =eneral Mana+er, no decision is rendered, the
decision under revie shall beco,e final and e8ecutor":Provided further, that any party
aggrieved by the decision of the General Manager as affirmed by the PPA Board may
appeal said decision to the Office of the President within thirty (!" days from receipt of a
copy thereof# ->,phasis supplied..
Fro, a cursor" readin+ of the afore0uoted provision, it is evident that the above contention has no basis.
)s to petitioner7s alle+ation that to its recollection there had been no prior publication of said PP)
)d,inistrative Order No. %;3$$, the Solicitor =eneral correctl" pointed out that said )d,inistrative Order
as dul" published in full in the nationide nespaper, ?The Ti,es !ournal?, on Nove,ber &,%&$$.
Moreover, it ,ust be stated that as correctl" observed b" the Solicitor =eneral, the facts of this case sho
that petitioner7s failure to appeal to the Office of the President on ti,e ste,s entirel" fro, its on
ne+li+ence and not fro, a purported i+norance of the proper procedural steps to ta2e. Petitioner had been
aare of the rules +overnin+ PP) procedures. In fact, as e,bodied in the Dece,ber %@, %&'A Order of the
Office of the President, petitioner even assailed the PP)7s rule ,a2in+ poers at the hearin+ before the
/ourt of Ta8 )ppeals.
It is a8io,atic that the ri+ht to appeal is ,erel" a statutor" privile+e and ,a" be e8ercised onl" in the
,anner and in accordance ith the provision of la -Fnited /M/ Te8tile Dor2ers Fnion vs. /lave, %;$
S/R) ;(@, citin+ the cases of 4ello vs. Fernando, ( S/R) %;': )+uila vs. Navarro, AA Phil. '&': and
Santia+o vs. ValenIuela, $' Phil. ;&$..
Further,ore, even if petitioner7s appeal ere to be +iven due course, the result ould still be the sa,e as it
does not present a substantiall" ,eritorious case a+ainst the PP).
Petitioner ,aintains and sub,its that there is no basis for the PP) to assess and i,pose the dues and
char+es it is collectin+ since the harf is private, constructed and ,aintained at no e8pense to the
+overn,ent, and that it e8ists pri,aril" so that its tu+boats and bar+es ,a" ferr" the su+arcane of its
Pana" planters.
)s correctl" stated b" the Solicitor =eneral, the fees and char+es PP) collects are not for the use of the
harf that petitioner ons but for the privile+e of navi+atin+ in public aters, of enterin+ and leavin+ public
harbors and berthin+ on public strea,s or aters. -Rollo, pp. 5A@35A$..
In /o,paJia =eneral de Tabacos de Filipinas vs. )ct+. /o,,issioner of /usto,s -#; S/R) @55., this
/ourt laid don the rule that berthin+ char+es a+ainst a vessel are collectible re+ardless of the fact that
,oorin+ or berthin+ is ,ade fro, a private pier or harf. This is because the +overn,ent ,aintains bodies
of ater in navi+able condition and it is to support its operations in this re+ard that dues and char+es are
i,posed for the use of piers and harves re+ardless of their onership.
)s to the re0uire,ent to re,it %56 of the handlin+ char+es, Section @43-i8. of the Presidential Decree No.
'A$ authoriIed the PP) ?To lev" dues, rates, or char+es for the use of the pre,ises, or2s, appliances,
facilities, or for services provided b" or belon+in+ to the )uthorit", or an" or+aniIation concerned ith port
operations.? This %56 +overn,ent share of earnin+s of arrastre and stevedorin+ operators is in the nature
of contractual co,pensation to hich a person desirin+ to operate arrastre service ,ust a+ree as a
condition to the +rant of the per,it to operate.
PR>MIS>S /ONSID>R>D, the instant petition is hereb" DISMISS>D.
SO ORD>R>D.
$eehan%ee, &#'#, (arvasa and Gancayco, ''#, concur#
&ru), '#, concur in the result#