Republic
of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
ASSOCIATION OF G.R. No. 172029
INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING
LINES, INC., in its own behalf and
in representation of its members: Present:
AMERICAN TRANSPORT LINES,
INC., AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
INTERNATIONAL
ARAB SHIPPING CO., CHICO-NAZARIO,
DONGNAMA
SHIPPING CO., NACHURA, and
HANJIN
SHIPPING COMPANY, REYES, JJ.
KNUTSEN
NEPTUNE
ORIENT
OVERSEAS
CONTAINER
P
& O CONTAINERS,
SWIRE
CONTAINERS
WILHELMSEN
REGIONAL
CONTAINERS LINES
(PTE),
BREMEN
GERMANY, TOKYO
SENPAKU
KAISHA,
UNIGLORY
ISRAEL
NAVIGATION CO.,
COMPANIA
SUD AMERICANA DE
VAPORES
S.A., DEUTSCHE
SEEREEDEREI
ROSTOCK (DSR)
GERMANY
SANGYO
COMPANY,
PACIFIC
INTERNATIONAL
LINES
(PTE),
MARITIME
D’ AFFRETEMENT
(
TRANSPORT
CORP., NIPON
YUSEN
KAISHA, HYUNDAI
MERCHANT
MARINE CO.,
MALAYSIAN
INTERNATIONAL
SHIPPING
CORPORATION
BERHAD,
BOLT ORIENT
MITSUI
O.S.K. LINES,
PHILS.
MICRONESIA & ORIENT
NAVIGATION
CO. (PMSO
LLOYD
TRIESTINO DI
NAVIGAZIONE
S.P.A.N.,
HEUNG-A
SHIPPING COMPANY,
KAWASAKI
KISEN
KAISHAARIMURA
SANGYO
COMPANY,
PRESIDENT
LINES,
MAERSK
FILIPINAS, INC.,
EASTERN
SHIPPING LINES,
INC.,
NEDLLOYD LINES, INC.,
PHILIPPINE
PRESIDENT LINES,
MADRIGAL-WAN
Petitioners,
-
versus -
UNITED
HARBOR PILOTS’
ASSOCIATION
OF THE Promulgated:
PHILIPPINES,
INC.,
Respondent. August 6, 2008
x - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
REYES, R.T., J.:
PAYMENT of nighttime and overtime differential of harbor
pilots is the object of this petition for review on certiorari[1]
of the Decision[2] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) partly setting aside the Order[3]
of the Regional Trial Court (
The Facts
On
Section 16. Payment of Pilotage Service Fees. – Any vessel which employs a Harbor Pilot shall pay the pilotage fees prescribed in this Order and shall comply with the following conditions:
x x
x x
c) When pilotage service is rendered at any port between 1800H to 1600H, Sundays or Holidays, an additional charge of one hundred (100%) percentum over the regular pilotage fees shall be paid by vessels engaged in foreign trade, and fifty (50%) percentum by coastwise vessels. This additional charge or premium fee for nighttime pilotage service shall likewise be paid when the pilotage service is commenced before and terminated after sunrise.
Provided,
however, that no premium fee shall be considered for service rendered after
1800H if it shall be proven that the service can be undertaken before such
hours after the one (1) hour grace period, as provided in paragraph (d) of this
section, has expired. (Emphasis supplied)
On
uniform and modified rates for pilotage services rendered in all Philippine
ports. It fixed the rate of pilotage
fees on the basis of the “vessel’s tonnage” and provided that the “rate for
docking and undocking anchorage, conduction and shifting and other related
special services is equal to 100%.” EO
No. 1088 also contained a repealing clause stating that all orders, letters of
instruction, rules, regulations, and issuances inconsistent with it are
repealed or amended accordingly.[6]
Subsequently, pursuant to EO No.
1088, the PPA issued several resolutions disallowing overtime premium or charge
and recalling its recommendation for a reasonable night premium pay or night
differential pay, viz.:
RESOLVED,
That on motion duly seconded, and in consideration of the proper court order(s)
mandating PPA to implement the pilotage rates under Executive Order No. 1088, the overtime premium or charge collected by
Harbor Pilots is hereby disallowed and Section 16(c) of Article
RESOLVED
FURTHER, That the General Manager, be, as he is hereby authorized, to issue the
corresponding amendatory guidelines.
RESOLVED,
That on motion duly seconded, and after taking into consideration the
respective positions of the various Harbor Pilot associations and shipping
groups, Board Resolution No. 1486, be,
as it is hereby reiterated and affirmed, and Management, be, as it is hereby
directed to adopt a policy of no overtime pay for pilotage services;
RESOLVED
FURTHER, That in lieu of the “no
overtime pay policy,” Management be, as it is hereby directed, to recommend a
reasonable night premium pay or night differential pay for the conduct of the
basic pilotage services.”
RESOLVED,
That on motion duly seconded, and taking into consideration the arguments
raised by the Association of International Shipping Lines, Inc., raising
certain legal issues on the adoption of Resolution No. 1541, as adopted on
RESOLVED
FURTHER, That pending review and
clarification by the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel of the legal
issues on overtime pay/nighttime premium pay, Resolution No. 1541, be, as it is
hereby recalled and Resolution No. 1486, as adopted on
On the strength of PPA Resolution No.
1486, petitioners Association of International Shipping Lines (AISL) and its
members refused to pay respondent United Harbor Pilots’ Association of the
Philippines, Inc. (UHPAP)’s claims for nighttime and overtime pay.[10] In response, UHPAP threatened to discontinue pilotage
services should their claims be continually ignored.[11]
Petitioners
then filed a petition for declaratory relief with the
On
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered granting the petition herein and it is hereby declared that (1) respondent PPA is bereft of authority to impose and respondent UHPAP is not authorized to collect any overtime or night shift differential for pilotage services rendered; and (2) the rates of fees for pilotage services rendered refer to the totality of pilotage services rendered and respondent UHPAP cannot legally charge separate fees for each pilotage service rendered. All billings inconsistent with this decision are declared null and void and petitioners are not liable therefor.
SO
ORDERED.[12] (Emphasis supplied)
The trial court said that in view of
the repealing clause in EO No. 1088, it was axiomatic that all prior issuances
inconsistent with it were deemed repealed. Thus, the provisions of Section 16 of PPA AO
No. 03-85 on nighttime and overtime pay were “effectively stricken-off the
books.” It further held that since the
rate of pilotage fees enumerated in EO No. 1088 was based on the “vessel’s
tonnage,” it meant that such rate referred to the “entire package of pilotage
services.” According to the trial court,
to rule otherwise is to frustrate the uniformity envisioned by the
rationalization scheme.
Respondent UHPAP moved for
reconsideration but the motion was denied.
Desiring to secure for its members
the payment of nighttime and overtime pay, respondent UHPAP filed directly before
this Court a petition for review on certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 133763, raising the following legal issues
for determination: (1) whether EO No.
1088 repealed the provisions of
On
Section 3 of E.O. No. 1088 is a general
repealing clause, the effect of which falls under the category of an implied
repeal as it does not identify the orders, rules or regulations it intends to
abrogate. A repeal by implication is
frowned upon in this jurisdiction. It
is not favored, unless it is manifest that the legislative authority so
intended or unless it is convincingly and unambiguously demonstrated that the
subject laws or orders are clearly repugnant and patently inconsistent that
they cannot co-exist. This is because the legislative authority is presumed to
know the existing law so that if repeal is intended, the proper step is to express
it.
There is nothing in E.O. No. 1088 that reveals any intention on the part of Former President Marcos to amend or supersede the provisions of PPA AO No. 03-85 on nighttime and overtime pay. While it provides a general repealing clause, the same is made dependent upon its actual inconsistency with other previous orders, rules, regulations or other issuance. Unfortunately for AISL, we find no inconsistency between E.O. No. 1088 and the provisions of PPA AO No. 03-85. At this juncture, it bears pointing out that these two orders dwell on entirely different subject matters. E.O. No. 1088 provides for uniform and modified rates for pilotage services rendered to foreign and coastwise vessels in all Philippine ports, public or private. The purpose is to rationalize and standardize the pilotage service charges nationwide. Upon the other hand, the subject matter of the controverted provisions of PPA AO No. 03-85 is the payment of the additional charges of nighttime and overtime pay. Plainly, E.O. No. 1088 involves the basic compensation for pilotage service while PPA AO No. 03-85 provides for the additional charges where pilotage service is rendered under certain circumstances. Just as the various wage orders do not repeal the provisions of the Labor Code on nighttime and overtime pay, the same principle holds true with respect to E.O. No. 1088 and PPA AO 03-85. Moreover, this Court adheres to the rule that every statute must be so construed and harmonized with other statutes as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence. E.O. No. 1088 and PPA AO No. 03-85 should thus be read together and harmonized to give effect to both.
x x
x x
While E.O. No. 1088 prescribes the rates of pilotage fees on the basis of the “vessel’s tonnage,” however, this does not necessarily mean that the said rate shall apply to the totality of pilotage services. If it were so, the benefit intended by E.O. No. 1088 to harbor pilots would be rendered useless and ineffectual. It would create an unjust if not an absurd situation of reducing take home pay of the harbor pilots to a single fee, regardless of the number of services they rendered from the time a vessel arrives up to its departure. It must be remembered that pilotage services cover a variety of maneuvers such as “docking,” “undocking anchorage,” “conduction,” “shifting” and other “related special services.” To say that the rate prescribed by E.O. No. 1088 refers to the totality of all these maneuvers is to defeat the benefit intended by the law for harbor pilots. It should be stressed that E.O. No. 1088 was enacted in response to the clamor of harbor pilots for the increase and rationalization of pilotage service charges through the imposition of uniform and adjusted rates. Hence, in keeping with the benefit intended by E.O. No. 1088, the schedule of fees fixed therein based on tonnage should be interpreted as applicable to “each pilotage maneuver” and not to the “totality of the pilotage services.”
The use of the word “and” between the words “docking” and “undocking” in paragraph 2 of Section 1 of E.O. No. 1088 should not override the above-mentioned purpose of said law. It is a basic precept of statutory construction that statutes should be construed not so much according to the letter that killeth but in line with the purpose for which they have been enacted. Statutes are to be given such construction as will advance the object, suppress the mischief, and secure the benefits intended.
Furthermore,
as can be gleaned from the drafts submitted by the PPA on the guidelines
pertaining to the uniform pilotage services to be rendered in all pilotage
districts, the PPA is of the interpretation that the rate of pilotage fees
fixed by E.O. No. 1088 is to be separately imposed on every pilotage maneuver
done by the harbor pilots. This
interpretation is likewise made clear in PPA Memorandum Circular No. 42-98,
dated
“To prevent disruption in pilotage service and considering the pendency of the final and executory decision of the Supreme Court on the pilotage rates issue, it is hereby clarified that pilotage fees for docking and undocking of vessels shall be paid as two (2) separate services x x x.”
The PPA is the proper government agency tasked with the duty of implementing E.O. No. 1088. As such, its interpretation of said law carries great weight and consideration. In a catena of cases, we ruled that the construction given to a statute by an administrative agency charged with the interpretation and application of a statute is entitled to great respect and should be accorded great weight by the courts. The exception, which does not obtain in the present case, is when such construction is clearly shown to be in sharp conflict with the governing statute or the Constitution and other laws. The rationale for this rule relates not only to the emergence of the multifarious needs of a modern or modernizing society and the establishment of diverse administrative agencies for addressing and satisfying those needs, it also relates to accumulation of experience and growth of specialized capabilities by the administrative agency charged with implementing a particular statute.
The charges and fees provided for in E.O.
No. 1088 are therefore to be imposed for every pilotage maneuver performed by the
harbor pilots, as properly interpreted by the PPA, the agency charged with its
implementation.
x x x x
Finally,
on the third issue, we rule that E.O.
No. 1088 does not deprive the PPA of its power and authority to promulgate new
rules and rates for payment of fees, including additional charges. As we held in Philippine Interisland Shipping Association of the
“The power of the PPA to fix pilotage rates
and its authority to regulate pilotage still remain notwithstanding the fact
that a schedule for pilotage fees has already been prescribed by the questioned
executive order (referring to E.O. No. 1088). PPA is at liberty to fix new
rates of pilotage subject only to the limitation that such new rates should not
go below the rates fixed under E.O. No. 1088. x x x.”
Our
pronouncement is clearly in consonance with the provisions of Presidential
Decree 857 which vests upon the PPA the power and authority (1) “to supervise,
control, regulate x x x such services as are necessary in the ports vested in,
or belonging to the Authority”; (2) “to control, regulate and supervise
pilotage and the conduct of pilots in any Port District”; and (3) “to impose,
fix, prescribe, increase or decrease such rates, charges or fees x x x for the
services rendered by it or by any private organization within a Port District.”[13] (Emphasis supplied)
The decision became final and
executory on
On
On
x x x [W]hen the Supreme Court ruled and declared that Executive Order 1088 does not deprive the PPA of its power and authority to promulgate rules and rates for payment of fees including additional charges, it had effectively ruled on the validity of PPA resolutions 1486, 1541, and 1554. Said resolutions did not violate any provision of Executive Order 1088 and did not constitute any diminution of the rates provided by said Executive Order. They merely repealed the collection of overtime premiums or charges which is provided not by Executive Order 1088 but by another PPA Administrative Order 03-85. This is not inconsistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court that Executive Order 1088 did not repeal the additional pay for holiday work and premium pay for nighttime service, collectively referred to as overtime pay provided in Customs Administrative Order No. 15-65 and PPA Administrative Order 03-85. The Supreme Court did not consider subsequent PPA resolutions or administrative orders affecting overtime pay because this was not brought out as an issue.
Resolutions
1486, 1541, and 1554 have no effect on Executive Order 1088 whatsoever.[18] (Emphasis supplied)
Respondent UHPAP then filed a
petition for certiorari[19] under
Rule 65 with the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 87892. It contended that the
CA Disposition
In
a Decision dated
IN
VIEW OF
SO
ORDERED.[21] (Emphasis supplied)
The CA set aside the declaration in
the
On
In a Resolution dated
Issue
Petitioners, via Rule 45, submit the lone assignment that THE
COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS REVERSIBLE ERROR IN INTERPRETING
Our
Ruling
The petition lacks merit.
This Court’s ruling in G.R. No. 133763 that
“EO No. 1088 did not repeal the provisions of PPA AO No. 03-85 on nighttime and
overtime pay,” necessarily rendered PPA Resolution Nos. 1486, 1541 and 1554
without any legal effect. Petitioners posit that notwithstanding the
declaration by this Court in G.R. No. 133763 that EO No. 1088 did not repeal
the overtime and nighttime pay provided under PPA AO 03-85, PPA Resolution Nos.
1486, 1541, and 1554 were not rendered “without legal effect.” They insist that in resolving in G.R. No.
133763 the issue of whether EO No. 1088 repealed the provisions of PPA AO No.
03-85 on nighttime and overtime pay, this Court did not discuss the logical
consequence of the resolution of the issue on the subject PPA Resolutions.[29]
We are not persuaded.
At the outset, it should be stressed that the PPA issued the
subject resolutions – which disallowed
overtime pay and recalled PPA’s recommendation for nighttime pay to harbor
pilots – pursuant to Section 3 of EO No. 1088 stating that “all orders, letters
of instruction, rules, regulations and issuances inconsistent with it are
repealed or amended accordingly.” The
PPA, just like petitioners,[30]
was of the belief that there was an actual inconsistency or an irreconcilable
conflict between EO No. 1088 and the provisions of PPA AO No. 03-85 on
nighttime and overtime pay, resulting in the implied repeal of the latter.[31]
But, as this Court pronounced in G.R.
No. 133763, there is nothing in EO No. 1088 that reveals any intention on the
part of Former President Marcos to amend or supersede the provisions of PPA AO
No. 03-85 on nighttime and overtime pay. While Section 3 of EO No. 1088 provides a
general repealing clause, the same is made dependent upon its actual
inconsistency with other previous orders, rules, regulations or other issuance.
There is no inconsistency between EO No. 1088 and the provisions of PPA AO
No. 03-85. These two orders dwell on
entirely different subject matters. EO
No. 1088 provides for uniform and modified rates for pilotage services rendered
to foreign and coastwise vessels in all Philippine ports, public or private. On the other hand, the subject matter of the
provisions of PPA AO No. 03-85 is the payment of the additional charges of
nighttime and overtime pay. Plainly, EO
No. 1088 involves the basic
compensation for pilotage service while PPA AO No. 03-85 provides for the additional charges where pilotage
service is rendered under certain circumstances.
Obviously, this Court’s ruling in G.R. No. 133763 was that EO No. 1088 did
not repeal the provisions of PPA AO No. 03-85 on nighttime and overtime pay as
there was no inconsistency between the two orders. The ruling rendered “without legal effect”
PPA Resolution Nos. 1486, 1541, and 1554, which were all issued by PPA pursuant
to Section 3 of EO No. 1088. Upon the
other hand, the validity of the earlier PPA AO No. 03-85, which allowed
nighttime and overtime pay to harbor pilots, was affirmed.
It is noteworthy that when this
Court, in G.R. No. 133763, reversed the
Members of respondent UHPAP are
entitled to nighttime and overtime pay. Undoubtedly,
pursuant to PPA AO No. 03-85, members of respondent UHPAP are legally entitled
to nighttime and overtime pay.
It bears pointing out that additional
compensation for nighttime work is founded on public policy.[32] Working at night is violative of the law of
nature for it is the period for rest and sleep. An employee who works at night has less
stamina and vigor. Thus, he can easily
contract disease. The lack of sunlight
tends to produce anemia and tuberculosis and predispose him to other ills. Night work brings increased liability to
eyestrain and accident. Serious moral
dangers also are likely to result from the necessity of traveling the street
alone at night, and from the interference with normal home life.[33] Hygienic, medical, moral, cultural and
socio-biological reasons are in accord that night work has many inconveniences
and when there is no alternative but to perform it, it is but just that the
laborer should earn greater salary than ordinary work so as to compensate the
laborer to some extent for the said inconveniences.[34]
Anent the payment of overtime pay,
the Court explained its rationale in Philippine
National Bank v. Philippine National Bank Employees Association (PEMA):[35]
x x
x Why is a laborer or employee who works
beyond the regular hours of work entitled to extra compensation called in this
enlightened time, overtime pay? Verily,
there can be no other reason than that he is made to work longer than what is
commensurate with his agreed compensation for the statutorily fixed or
voluntarily agreed hours of labor he is supposed to do. When he thus spends additional time to his
work, the effect upon him is multi-faceted: he puts in more effort, physical
and/or mental; he is delayed in going home to his family to enjoy the comforts
thereof; he might have no time for relaxation, amusement or sports; he might
miss important pre-arranged engagements; etc., etc. It is thus the additional work, labor or
service employed and the adverse effects just mentioned of his longer stay in
his place of work that justify and is the real reason for the extra compensation
that he called overtime pay.
Overtime
work is actually the lengthening of hours developed to the interests of the
employer and the requirements of his enterprise. It follows that the wage or salary to be
received must likewise be increased, and more than that, a special additional
amount must be added to serve either as encouragement or inducement or to make
up for the things he loses which we have already referred to. And on this score, it must always be borne in
mind that wage is indisputably intended as payment for work done or services
rendered.[36]
Moreover,
We agree with the CA that the
(1)
a construction of Executive Order No.
1088 declaring that AISLI is not liable to pay overtime and night shift
differential to respondent UHPAP; and
(2) a construction of Executive Order No. 1088
declaring that the schedule of rates provided therein applies to the entire
package of pilotage services under the compulsory pilotage scheme and that
UHPAP cannot separately charge AISLI for each pilotage service rendered.[37]
The disposition of the
In such civil actions for declaratory relief
under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, the judgment does not entail an executory process, as the primary objective of
petitioner is to determine any question of construction or validity and for a
declaration of concomitant rights and duties.[39] The proper remedy would have been for members
of respondent UHPAP to claim for overnight and nighttime pay before petitioners
AISLI and its members.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the appealed Decision AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO
B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
I
attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo,
pp. 8-32.
[2]
[3]
[4] Customs Administrative Order No. 15-65,
Chapter II, Par.
“When pilotage service is rendered at
any port between sunset and sunrise, an additional charge of one hundred percentum (100%) over the regular pilotage
fees shall be paid for vessels engaged in foreign trade and fifty (50%)
percentum for coastwise vessels. This
additional charge or premium fee for night time pilotage service shall likewise
be paid when the pilotage service is commenced before and finished after sunset
or commenced before and finished after sunrise.”
[5] As defined, pilotage service consists of
navigating a vessel from a specific point, usually about two (2) miles off
shore, to an assigned area at the pier and vice versa. Thus, when a vessel arrives, a harbor pilot
takes over the ship from its captain to maneuver it to a berth in the port, and
when it departs, the harbor pilot also maneuvers it up to a specific point off
shore. The set up is required by the
fact that each port has a peculiar topography with which a harbor pilot is
presumed to be more familiar than a ship captain. (Philippine Interisland Shipping Association of the Philippines v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 100481,
[6] Executive Order No. 1088, Sec. 3.
[7] Rollo,
p. 48.
[8]
[9]
[10] UHPAP is the umbrella organization of various
groups rendering pilotage service in the different ports of the
[11]
UHPAP Resolution No. 1-96.
[12] Rollo, p. 37.
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30] United Harbor Pilots’ Association of the Philippines, Inc. v.
Association of International Shipping Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 133763,
[31]
[32] Mercury
Drug Co., Inc. v. Dayao, G.R. No.
L-30452,
[33] Shell
Company v. National Labor Union, 81 Phil. 315, 328 (1948), citing Commons
and Andrews, Principles of Labor Legislation, 4th rev. ed., p. 142.
[34] Poquiz, Labor Standards Law
with Notes and Comments, 1999 ed., pp. 176-177, citing Barbash, The Practice of
Unionism, p. 145.
[35] G.R.
No. L-30279,
[36] Philippine National Bank v. Philippine
National Bank Employees Association (PEMA), id. at 527-528.
[37] Rollo, p. 37.
[38] G.R. No. 133763.
[39]
Rule 63, Sec 1. Who may file petition. – Any
person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or
whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation,
ordinance, or any other governmental regulation may, before breach or violation
thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine
any question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his
rights or duties, thereunder. x x x