Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-54958 September 2, 1983
ANGLO-!L TRA"!NG CORPORAT!ON, A"UANA STE#E"OR!NG CORPORAT!ON, AN"A STE#E"OR!NG CORPORAT!ON,
$EN PA% PORT SER#!CE, !NC., MAN!LA STE#E"OR!NG CORPORAT!ON, &ATERRONT STE#E"OR!NG AN" ARRASTRE
SER#!CES, !NC., #ANGUAR" STE#E"OR!NG AN" ARRASTRE SER#!CES, !NC., '() LU#!M!N STE#E"OR!NG*ARRASTRE
+ "E#ELOPMENT CORPORAT!ON, petitioners,
vs.
,ON. ALRE"O LA%ARO, -( .-/ 0'p'0-t1 '/ Pre/-)-(2 34)2e o5 $r'(0. 66#, o5 t.e Co4rt o5 -r/t !(/t'(0e o5 M'(-7',
P,!L!PP!NE PORTS AUT,OR!T8, COL. EUSTA9U!O S. $ACL!G, 3R., C"R. PR!M!T!#O SOL!S, 3R., '() OCEAN TERM!NAL
SER#!CES, !NC., respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
G.R. No. L-549::
P,!L!PP!NE !NTEGRATE" PORT SER#!CES, !NC., petitioner,
vs.
T,E ,ONORA$LE ALRE"O M. LA%ARO, 34)2e o5 t.e Co4rt o5 -r/t !(/t'(0e o5 M'(-7', $r'(0. 66#, P,!L!PP!NE
PORTS AUT,OR!T8, COL. EUSTA9U!O S. $ACL!G, 3R., C"R. PR!M!T!#O S. SOL!S, 3R., '() OCEAN TERM!NAL
SER#!CES, !NC., respondents.
GUT!ERRE%, 3R., J.:
These to petitioners foe certiorari see! to annul the order of the Court of "irst #nstance of Manila issued ex-parte, liftin$ the
restrainin$ orders it had previousl% issued. The settin$ aside of the restrainin$ orders enabled the i&ple&entation of the
Mana$e&ent Contract executed b% and beteen respondents, providin$ for respondent 'cean Ter&inal (ervices, #nc. as the
exclusive stevedorin$ contractor at the (outh )arbor, Port of Manila.
#nvolved in these to petitions is the operation of stevedorin$ or! in the (outh )arbor of the Port of Manila. (tevedorin$, as the
ter& is understood in the port business, consists of the handlin$ of car$o fro& the hold of the ship to the doc!, in case of pier-side
unloadin$, or to a bar$e, in case of unloadin$ at sea. The loadin$ on the ship of out$oin$ car$o is also part of stevedorin$ or!.
(tevedorin$ char$es at rates approved b% the *overn&ent are assessed and collected for the services.
The Philippines Ports Authorit% +PPA,, the $overn&ent a$enc% char$ed ith the &ana$e&ent and control of all ports, as created
b% Presidential -ecree No. ./., pro&ul$ated on 0ul% 11, 1234, later superseded b% Presidential -ecree No. 5.3 dated -ece&ber
67, 123.. The PPA8s function is to carr% out an inte$rated pro$ra& for the plannin$, develop&ent, financin$, and operation of ports
and port districts throu$hout the countr%. A&on$ other thin$s, the poers, duties, and 9urisdiction of the Bureau of Custo&s
concernin$ arrastre operations ere transferred to and vested in the PPA.
The Philippine #nte$rated Port (ervices, #nc., +P#P(#,, petitioner in *.R. No. .42::, is a stevedorin$ operator at the Manila (outh
)arbor. An$lo-"il Tradin$ Corporation, Aduana (tevedorin$ Corporation, Anda (tevedorin$ Corporation, Ben Pa; Port (ervice,
#nc., Manila (tevedorin$ and Arrastre (ervices, #nc., +An$lo-"il, et al.,, petitioners in *.R. No. .42.5, are stevedorin$ and arrastre
operators and contractors, li!eise at Manila (outh )arbor, Port of Manila. An$lo-"il, et al., are &e&bers of the Philippine
Association of (tevedorin$ 'perators and Contractors, #nc. +PA('C,.
Prior to the present controvers% hich arose as a result of the actions of the PPA, tent%-three +67, contractors co&peted at the
(outh )arbor for the perfor&ance of stevedorin$ or!. The licenses of these contractors had lon$ expired hen the PPA too!
over the control and &ana$e&ent of ports but the% continued to operate afterards on the stren$th of te&porar% per&its and hold-
over authorities issued b% PPA.
'n Ma% 4, 123:, the Board of -irectors of PPA passed Resolution No. 1/, approvin$ and adoptin$ and adoptin$ a set of policies
on Port Ad&inistration, Mana$e&ent and 'peration. The PPA adopted as its on the on the Bureau of Custo&s8 polic% of
placin$ on onl% one or$ani;ation the responsibilit% for the operation of arrastre and stevedorin$ services in one port.
'n April 11, 125/, Presidential "erdinand E. Marcos issued <etter of #nstruction No. 1//.-A hich a&on$ other thin$s, directed
PPA=
To expeditiousl% evaluate all reco$ni;ed car$o-handlin$ contractors and port-related service operators doin$ business in
all Port -istricts in the countr% under such criteria as PPA &a% set and to deter&ine the >ualified contractor or operator
under said criteria in order to ensure effective utili;ation of port facilities, prevent pilfera$e and?or pinpoint responsibilit% for
its and provide opti&u& services to &a9or ports vital to the countr%8s trade and econo&%.
This as folloed b% the President8s &e&orandu& to respondent Baclin$ dated April 15, 125/, directin$ sub&ission of a report on
the inte$rated of the stevedorin$ operations in Manila (outh )arbor and e&phasi;in$ the need for such inte$ration as ell as the
stren$thenin$ of the PPA in order to re&ed% the proble&s therein. #n co&pliance thereith, PPA &ade a stud% evaluation of the
arrastre and stevedorin$ industr% in the ports here inte$ration had not %et been achieved. A special co&&ittee as created on
April 6., 125/ to &a!e a final evaluation of existin$ operators in the (outh )arbor and to select the &ost >ualified a&on$ the&.
'n April 65, 125/, the co&&ittee sub&itted its report reco&&endin$ the aard of an exclusive contract for stevedorin$ services in
the (outh )arbor to respondent 'cean Ter&inal (ervices, #nc. +'T(#, after findin$ it the best >ualified a&on$ the existin$
contractors. The co&&ittee report and reco&&endation ere indorsed b% respondent Pri&itivo (olis, 0r., Port Mana$er of Manila,
to respondent Bacli$ on April 7/, 125/. 'n Ma% 14, 125/, the latter approved the reco&&endation.
#n accordance ith the President8s &e&orandu& dated April 15, 125/, PPA sub&itted the co&&ittee report to hi&. 'n Ma% 64,
125/, the President approved the reco&&endation to aard an exclusive &ana$e&ent contract to 'T(#.
'n 0une 63, 125/, PPA and 'T(# entered into a &ana$e&ent contract hich provided, a&on$ others, for a five-%ear exclusive
operation b% 'T(# of stevedorin$ services in the (outh )arbor, reneable for another five +., %ears. The contract set the
co&&ence&ent of the exclusive operation b% 'T(# upon proper deter&ination b% PPA hich shall not be earlier that to +6,
&onths fro& the approval of the contract b% the Board of -irectors of the PPA. The latter $ave its approval on 0une 63, 125/.
'n 0ul% 67, 125/, petitioner P#P(# instituted an action a$ainst PPA and 'T(# for the nullification of the contract beteen the to,
the annul&ent of the 1/@ of $ross stevedorin$ revenue bein$ collected b% PPA, and in9unction ith preli&inar% in9unction. The
case as doc!eted as Civil Case No. 177433 in the Court of "irst #nstance of Manila, provided over b% respondent 0ud$e Alfredo
<a;aro. 'n 0ul% 62, 125/, the respondent court issued a restrainin$ order ex-parte, en9oinin$ respondents PPA and 'T(# fro&
i&ple&entin$ the exclusive contract of stevedorin$ beteen the&.
'n Au$ust 61, 125/, ith leave of court, petitioners, An$lo-"il, et al., filed their co&plaint in intervention. The &otion as $ranted
and on Au$ust 66, 125/, respondent court issued another ex-parte restrainin$ order in the case to include the petitioners An$lo-"il
et al., under the benefits of such order.
'n Au$ust 7/, 125/, PPA filed an ur$ent &otion to lift the restrainin$ orders Ain vie of their lon$ dela% in the resolution of the
in9unction incident and the countervailin$ public interest involved.A 'n (epte&ber 1, 125/, respondent 0ud$e issued an order,
hich readsB
AA( PRACE- "'R, the restrainin$ orders issued b% the this Court on 0ul% 62, 125/ and Au$ust 6/, 125/, are hereb% dissolved,
lifted, and set aside without prejudice to the Court8s resolution on the propriet% of issuin$ the rit of preli&inar% in9unction pra%ed
for b% the petitioners.A
'n (epte&ber ., 125/, PPA sent a letter to the *eneral Mana$er of P#P(# infor&in$ hi& that due to the liftin$ of the te&porar%
restrainin$ order, it as ithdrain$ P#P(#8s hold-over authorit% to operate or provide stevedorin$ services at (outh )arbor
effective (epte&ber 3, 125/.
Petitioners An$lo-"il, et al., and P#P(#, therefore, filed the present petitions for certiorari ith preli&inar% in9unction alle$in$ that the
liftin$ of the retrainin$ orders ex-parte b% respondent 0ud$e as clearl% affected ith $rave abuse of discretion a&ountin$ to lac!
of 9urisdiction. The% also applied for the issuance in the &eanti&e of a restrainin$ order.
'n (epte&ber 2, 125/, e ordered the consolidation of the to cases and on Au$ust 16, 125/, heard the petitioners8 &otions for
a restrainin$ order.
'n (epte&ber 1., 125/, the respondent court issued an order in Civil Case No. 177433 den%in$ the application of petitioners for
a rit of preli&inar% in9unction and affir&in$ its order of (epte&ber 1, 125/ liftin$ the te&porar% restrainin$ orders issued in the
case.
'n the sa&e da%, the Datipunan n$ &$a Man$$a$aa sa -aun$an +DAMA-A,, a labor federation and its thirteen +17, &e&ber
labor or$ani;ations filed a petition to intervene in the consolidated cases. Accordin$ to DAMA-A, its &e&bers ould lose their
9obs if the contract as i&ple&ented. #t also alle$ed that the collective bar$ainin$ contract beteen 'T(# and PEFP ould be
pre9udicial to or!ers because DAMA-A &e&bers received $reater benefits fro& the ousted contractors=
'n (epte&ber 62, 125/, P#P(# filed a supple&ental petition to annul the order of the respondent 9ud$e den%in$ the application for
preli&inar% in9unction and affir&in$ the orders issued on 0ul% 62 and Au$ust 66, 125/.1Gphi1
'n 'ctober 14, 125/, PPA filed its co&&ent ith opposition to preli&inar% in9unction statin$ that the liftin$ of the restrainin$ orders
b% respondent 9ud$e as intended to preserve the status >uo pendin$ resolution of the preli&inar% in9unction= that said orders
ere issued ithout hearin$ or bond, therefore, the dissolution as proper considerin$ that it had been in force for one &onth and
an earl% resolution of the &otion for in9unction as not in si$ht, and that in dissolvin$ an in9unction alread% issued, the court cannot
be considered as havin$ acted ithout 9urisdiction or in excess thereof even if dissolution had been &ade ithout previous notice
to the adverse part% and ithout a hearin$. "urther&ore, it ar$ued that hen the purpose of an ad&inistrative deter&ination is to
decide hether a ri$ht or privile$e hich an applicant does not possess shall be $ranted to hi& or ithheld in the exercise of a
discretion vested b% statute, notice and hearin$ are not necessar%. #t also added that the polic% of inte$ration in the aard b% PPA
to 'T(# is i&pressed ith public interest hile hat is involved as far as petitioners ere concerned as &erel% their alle$ed ri$ht
to operate stevedorin$ services, a propert% ri$ht the denial of hich could easil% be restored in the event the respondent court
decided that petitioners are entitled to it.
#n their consolidated repl%, An$lo-"il, et al., ar$ued that the te&porar% order in their favor as not issued ex-parte for the folloin$
reasonsB a, it as issued hen P#P(# and PPA ere alread% conductin$ hearin$s on the petition for preli&inar% in9unction= b, it
as announced in open court= and c, PPA did not ob9ect to such issuance. <i!eise, the% ar$ued that althou$h a per&it to operate
is a privile$e, its ithdraal &ust co&pl% ith due process of la 9ust li!e the practice of la, &edicine, or accountanc%, and that
not onl% propert% ri$hts are involved but their ver% livelihood, their ri$ht to live.
'n 'ctober 61, 125/, e issued a resolution $rantin$ the te&porar% &andator% restrainin$ order Aeffective i&&ediatel% orderin$
respondents to allo the or!ers represented b% said petitioner-intervenors to render the stevedorin$ services perfor&ed b% the&
on forei$n vessels in the Manila (outh )arbor before the execution of the exclusive stevedorin$ contract of 0une 63, 125/ until
further orders of the Court, the order of respondent 0ud$e, dated (epte&ber 1 and 1., 125/ as ell as the i&ple&entin$ letter of
Philippine Ports Authorit% of (epte&ber ., 125/ to the contrar% notithstandin$.A
'n 'ctober 64, 125/, PPA issued Me&orandu& 'rder No. 67 providin$ for $uidelines in i&ple&entin$ the te&porar% &andator%
restrainin$ order of the (upre&e Court dated 'ctober 61, 125/, to itB
x x x x x x x x x
+1., The 'ffice of the )arbor Master shall deter&ine hich union has serviced a particular vessel for the period fro&
0anuar% 1, 125/ to 0une 6:, 125/. The nu&ber of services perfor&ed b% a particular union for a $iven vessel shall be
>uantified for the said period after hich each union shall be identified hether the% are affiliated ith PEFP or DAMA-A.
+6., The &ost nu&ber of ti&es that a union has serviced a particular vessel ith its affiliation properl% considered shall
continue to service said vessel for its inco&in$ calls or arrivals.
+7., #f there is a tie in the nu&ber of services perfor&ed b% both PEFP and DAMA-A affiliated unions, the last union that
serviced said vessel shall be alloed to continue servicin$ the sa&e on all its inco&in$ calls or arrivals.
+4., 'nce the union has been properl% identified durin$ the berthin$ &eetin$, the )arbor Master shall infor& 'cean
Ter&inal (ervices, #nc. accordin$l% and shall be authori;ed to ne$otiate ith the union or the $an$ leader concerned on
the nu&ber of $an$s as &a% be re>uired b% the vessel or its a$ent.
+.., All unions in this order shall refer onl% to (outh )arbor stevedorin$ union.
+:., DAMA-A shall have the dut% and responsibilit% to certif% that the stevedores deplo%ed in an% $iven vessel alloed for
their or! are bona fide &e&bers of their $roup and that the% ere the sa&e stevedores ho serviced assi$ned vessel
prior to the stevedorin$ services inte$ration.
'n Nove&ber 3 and 1/, 125/ 'T(# and PPA filed their separate ansers to DAMA-A8s petition in intervention. The% assured this
Court that none of the le$iti&ate stevedores ho had 9oined the DAMA-A ould be displaced fro& or! provided he 9oined
PEFP. Eritten $uarantees of this assurance ere separatel% sub&itted to this Court b% both 'T(# and PEFP. 'T(# further
alle$ed in its anser that, contrar% to the clai& of DAMA-A, the CBA si$ned b% 'T(# ith PEFP represented the best of
e&plo%&ent ever offered to the stevedores in the (outh )arbor.
'n Nove&ber 17, 125/, An$lo-"il, et al., filed an ur$ent &otion to cite PPA and 'T(# in conte&pt on the folloin$ $roundsB 1,
issuance of PPA-P'M Me&orandu& No. 67, series of 125/= 6, letter of 'ctober 62, 125/ of PPA to An$lo-"il, et al., den%in$
a "non-existing" re>uest for per&ission to operate b% the latter= and 7, refusal of PPA authorities to issue $ate passes to DAMA-A-
affiliated stevedores to be used and e&plo%ed b% An$lo-"il, et al., in their resu&ption of or!, pursuant to the (upre&e Court
order of 'ctober 61, 125/.
'n Nove&ber 6/, 125/, PPA filed a &otion to lift the te&porar% &andator% restrainin$ order but the sa&e as denied b% this
Court.
'n Nove&ber 6:, 125/, an ur$ent &otion for clarification of the resolution of 'ctober 61, 125/ as filed b% DAMA-A see!in$
clarification as to hich co&pan% its or!ers should or! for, alle$in$ that after Antranco (tevedores Fnion +Antranco, a DAMA-A
&e&ber, had received a letter fro& 'T(# to suppl% the necessar% stevedores $an$ to service the (?( A(uccessA, An$lo-"il Tradin$
Corporation prohibited its e&plo%ees ho are &e&bers of Antranco fro& or!in$ for 'T(# in the li$ht of the resolution of this
Court and the existin$ collective bar$ainin$ a$ree&ent beteen said union and An$lo-"ilTradin$ Corporation. As a conse>uence,
the union as alle$edl% unable to service (?( A(uccessA and fro& 'ctober 61, 125/ up to the present, 'T(# failed to allo
&e&bers of DAMA-A to service several vessels.
A 9oint &anifestation as filed b% respondents PPA and 'T(# alle$in$ co&pliance ith the above resolution to the effect that
DAMA-A or!ers have been and are bein$ e&plo%ed on the vessels the% used to serve prior to 0une 63, 125/, and 9ustif%in$
issuance of PPA-P'M Me&orandu& No. 67, as a &eans to avert possible conflict a&on$ the co&petin$ union $roups +PEFP
and DAMA-A, involved, to provide a reasonable and fair s%ste& for deter&inin$ hich $roup had previousl% or!ed on a vessel
and should or! on its subse>uent calls, and to insure that onl% the bonafide stevedores conte&plated b% the order of this Court
are alloed to or!.
'n -ece&ber 6, 125/, another &otion for clarification as filed b% DAMA-A re$ardin$ the phrase Aforei$n vesselsA hich it stated
to be inaccurate as DAMA-A &e&bers also or! on vessels of Philippine re$istr% li!e those operated b% (eet <ines and
<oren;o (hippin$ <ines hose vessels also doc! at the Manila (outh )arbor. #t su$$ested that the basis should not be the forei$n
vessels but the shippin$ a$ents or charterers and consi$nees and that the basis for deter&inin$ and >uantif%in$ the vessels $iven
to PEFP or DAMA-A should be fro& 0anuar% 1, 1235 to (epte&ber 3, 125/.
This Court in a resolution dated -ece&ber 2, 125/, $ranted the &otion of DAMA-A to itB
x x x x x x x x x
x x x +7, *RANT the &otion for clarification b% petitioners-intervenors issuin$ a resolution previousl% released, the pertinent
portion of hich reads, Hfor hile the order of 'ctober 61, 125/ is on its face >uite definite as to hat it purports to re>uire, this
resolution &a% re&ove an% doubt as to its purpose and intent, thus assurin$ the ut&ost fidelit% in its co&pliance. The order
re>uires and &andates that all or!ers represented b% said petitioners-invtervenors can continue renderin$ stevedorin$ services
perfor&ed b% the& on forei$n vessels, in Manila (outh )arbor before the execution of the exclusive stevedorin$ contract of 0une
63, 125/, until further orders of the Court, ithout an% reference to an% particular vessel, the decisive factor bein$ shippin$ lines
involved and the fact that the% ere at that ti&e renderin$ stevedorin$ services, irrespective of the labor unions to hich the% are
affiliated. xxx.A
#nspite of our clarificator% order, various proble&s in its i&ple&entation appear to have beset the parties. Repeated &otions and
&anifestations and counter&otions and counter&anifestations ere filed ith unbro!en re$ularit%, sellin$ the records of these
petitions to unusual proportions. After re>uirin$ the parties to sub&it their respective positions, e issued on 0anuar% :, 1257, a
resolution hich &odified our earlier orders as follosB
A*.R. No. .42.5 +An$lo-"il Tradin$ Corporation, et al. vs. )on.Alfredo <a;aro, et al.,= and *.R. No. .42:: +Philippine #nte$rated
Port (ervices, #nc. vs. )on. Alfredo <a;aro, et al.,. I Considerin$ the ur$ent &otion and &anifestation of petitioners-intervenors
filed on March 6/, 1256, the co&&ent of respondent 'cean Ter&inal (ervices, #nc., filed on 0une 3, 1256, the co&&ent of
respondent Philippine Ports Authorit% filed on 0une 5, 1256, the repl% of petitioners-intervenors filed on 0une 65, 1256, the
re9oinder of respondent 'cean Ter&inal (ervices, #nc., filed on 0ul% 63, 1256, the re9oinder of respondent Philippine Ports
Authorit% filed on Au$ust :, 1256 and the supple&ental &otion and &anifestation filed b% petitioners-intervenors on (epte&ber 1.,
1256, the Court Resolved to direct the parties concerned to observe the folloin$ $uidelines in the allocation of stevedorin$
assi$n&entsB 1. An% vessel belon$in$ to a shippin$ line shall be assi$ned for stevedorin$ or! to the union that had served that
shippin$ line the $reatest nu&ber of ti&es as appearin$ in the PPA records for the six-&onth period i&&ediatel% precedin$ the
execution of the stevedorin$ contract of 'T(#. 6. The above notithstandin$, henever a vessel destined to or proceedin$ fro&
the Port of Manila has been chartered for a particular vo%a$e b% a consi$nee or an% person havin$ interest in the $oods carried
therein, such vessel shall be assi$ned for stevedorin$ or! to the union that served the charterer the $reater nu&ber of ti&es as
appearin$ in the PPA records for six-&onth period i&&ediatel% precedin$ the execution of the stevedorin$ contract of 'T(#. #n
case there are to or &ore charterer ho pa%s the hi$hest frei$ht char$es shall be the deter&inin$ fact in the assi$n&ent. 7.
Jessels of ne shippin$ lines callin$ at the Port of Manila for the first ti&e as ell as vessels contracted b% ne charterers shall
be assi$ned to the union of choice of the ne shippin$ line or charterer as the case &a% be.A
The &ain issue in these petitions is hether or not the respondent 9ud$e acted ith $rave abuse of discretion hen he lifted ex-
parte the te&porar% restrainin$ order he had earlier issued also ex-parte.
"ro& the viepoint of procedure, e see no $rave abuse of discretion or ant of 9urisdiction. (ubse>uent to the issuance to the
>uestioned order, the respondent court heard the parties on the petitioners8 application for a rit of preli&inar% in9unction and, after
hearin$ the parties8 evidence and ar$u&ents, denied the application for the rit. Ee also a$ree the ith the respondents that it is
not $rave abuse of discretion hen a court dissolves ex-parte abuse of discretion hen a court dissolves ex-parte a restrainin$
order also issued ex-parte. +Cala%a v. Ra&os, 32 Phil, :4/= Clar!e v. Philippine Read% Mix Concrete Co., 55 Phil. 4:/= <arap
<abor Fnion v. Jictoriano, 23 Phil. 47..,
The restrainin$ orders dated 0ul% 62, 125/ and Au$ust 66, 125/ respectivel% provideB
x x x x x x x x x
A"indin$ the alle$ations in the co&plaint to be sufficient in for& and in substance, a te&porar% restrainin$ order is hereb% issued x
x x.
x x x x x x x x x
Aand to &aintain the status >uo until further orders from this court.
x x x.
x x x x x x x x x
A#t appearin$ that on 0ul% 62, 125/, this Court issued an order $rantin$ the pra%er of the ori$inal plaintiff for a te&porar% restrainin$
order, the sa&e order is hereb% reiterated and to include An$lo-"il Tradin$ Corporation. x x x.
x x x x x x x x x
Aplaintiffs-intervenors herein and for the parties to serve the status >uo until further orders from this Court." +#talics supplied,
A restrainin$ order is an order to &aintain the sub9ect of controvers% in status >uo until the hearin$ of an application for a
te&porar% in9unction. Fnless extended b% the court, a restrainin$ order ceases to be operative at the expiration of the ti&e fixed b%
its ter&s. #n cases here it has been $ranted ex-parte, it &a% be dissolved upon &otion before anser. +(ee the Revised Rules of
Court, "rancisco, pp. 154-15:, citin$ 47 C0(, 65 A&. 0ur,
"ro& the afore>uoted dispositive portions, it is be%ond doubt that the duration of the restrainin$ orders as Auntil further orders
fro& the court.A #n liftin$ said restrainin$ orders on (epte&ber 1, 125/, respondent 9ud$e &erel% exercised the prero$ative he
earlier reposed upon hi&self to ter&inate such orders hen circu&stances so arranted. Considerin$ a$ain that the previous
$rants of the restrainin$ orders in favor of petitioners ere &ade ex-parte and ithout bond, the need for a notice and hearin$ in
re$ard to such liftin$ as not necessar%, &uch less &andator%.
The petitioners8 contention that the liftin$ of the restrainin$ order had rendered &oot and acade&ic the in9unction case in the trial
court is li!eise untenable. A restrainin$ order is distin$uished fro& an in9unction in that it is intended as a restraint on the
defendant until the propriet% of $rantin$ an in9unction pendente lite can be deter&ined, and it $oes no further than to preserve the
status >uo until such deter&ination. Therefore, the $rant, denial, or liftin$ of a restrainin$ order does not in an%a% pre-e&pt the
court8s poer to decide the issue in the &ain action hich in the case at bar, is the in9unction suit. #n fact, the records ill sho
that the trial court proceeded ith the &ain suit for in9unction after the liftin$ of the restrainin$ orders.
Petitioner P#P(# also &aintains that there ere no considerations of public interest hich supported the liftin$. 'n the contrar%, the
liftin$ alle$edl% per&itted a situation palpabl% a$ainst public interest, that is, confiscation of petitioners8 business and those
si&ilarl% situated. This, a$ain, is untenable.
The strea&linin$ of the stevedorin$ activities in the various ports of the Philippines as underta!en b% PPA to i&ple&ent <'# No.
1//.-A. The public interest, public elfare, and public polic% sou$ht to be subserved b% said <'# are clearl% set forth in its
hereas clauses. The% areas follosB
x x x x x x x x x
AE)EREA(, it is a declared national polic% to support and accelerate the develop&ent of $overn&ent port facilities as ell as vital
port develop&ent pro9ects and services=
x x x x x x x x x
AE)EREA(, it is a pri&e concern of $overn&ent to protect the interests of le$iti&ate port or!ers and port users in the countr%=
x x x x x x x x x
AE)EREA(, there is need to rationali;e and inte$rate car$o-handlin$ and other port-related services as &a% have been
contracted out or authori;ed b% the PPA in the various ports of the countr%=
AE)EREA(, the procedures of voluntar% &er$er, consolidation and?or biddin$ for the aardin$ or contractin$ of car$o-handlin$
and other port-related services have heretofore proven ineffective and resulted in prolon$ed and unproductive ran$lin$, all to the
detri&ent of efficient port operations and develop&ent= and
AE)EREA(, it no beco&e necessar% to revitali;e and strea&line the PPA to carr% out its functions and duties as a vital lin! in
the $overn&ental &achiner% and the thrust for national econo&ic develop&ent=A
x x x x x x x x x
Clearl%, there is a reasonable relation beteen the undeniable existence of an undesirable situation and the statutor% atte&pt to
avoid it. APublic elfare, then, lies at the botto& of the enact&ent of said la, and the state in order to pro&ote the $eneral elfare
&a% interfere ith personal libert%, ith propert%, and ith business and occupations.A +(ee Alala%an v. National Poer
Corporation, 64 (CRA 136= Er&ita-Malate )otel and Motel 'ners Association v. Cit% Ma%or, 6/ (CRA 542, These
considerations ere considered b% the respondent 9ud$e hen he issued his >uestioned order dated (epte&ber 1, 125/. )e
statedB
x x x x x x x x x
AEhile in the &ain this Court is not insensitive to the pli$ht of the petitioners, the overridin$ considerations of public interest, as
i&pressed b% the 'ffice of the (olicitor *eneral, &ust be $iven $reater ei$ht and i&portant. This is co&pounded b% the a% and
&anner b% hich the parties are no fashionin$ and shapin$ their respective positions. The proceedin$s, to sa% the least, have
beco&e accented ith a &%riad of contentious facts and intercalated ith co&plex le$al issues. "or the &atter is not a si&ple
deter&ination of ri$ht and ron$ but a collision of ideas and viepoints. All these, indeed, &ilitate a$ainst an earl% resolution of
the application for a rit of preli&inar% in9unction.
x x x x x x x x x
The above state&ent are sufficient bases for the liftin$ of the order. #t is clear that not onl% did the respondent 9ud$e base the
liftin$ on consideration of public interest but also on the fact that the restrainin$ orders ere issued ex-parte ithout bond and that
the resolution of the &otion for preli&inar% in9unction as still far fro& bein$ decided.
The state&ent of the respondent 9ud$e that Ait cannot sit in 9ud$&ent, ithout pre9udice to public interest, on the truth and isdo&
of the alle$ation in support of the Fr$ent MotionA should not be interpreted to &ean that courts cannot pass upon the $reater issue
of hether or not public interest is served or is pre9udiced. The deter&ination b% PPA that the &easure sou$ht to be enforced is
9ustified b% public interest and the PPA &anner of i&ple&entin$ a Presidential -ecree and <etters of #nstruction are sub9ect to
9udicial revie.
The Constitution defines the poers of $overn&ent. Eho is to deter&ine the nature, scope, and extent of such poersK The
Constitution has provided for the instru&entalit% of the 9udiciar% as the rational a%. #n deter&inin$ hether or not the exercise of
poers vested b% the Constitution trul% serves the $eneral elfare or is affected b% public interest, the 9udiciar% does not assert
an% superiorit% over the other depart&ents but onl% fulfills the sole&n and sacred obli$ation assi$ned to it b% the Constitutions to
deter&ine conflictin$ clai&s of authorit% and to establish for the parties in an actual controvers% the ri$hts hich that instru&ent
secures and $uarantees to the&. This is in truth all that is involved in hat is ter&ed A9udicial supre&ac%A hich properl% is the
poer of 9udicial revie under the Constitutions. +(ee An$ara vs. Electoral Co&&ission, :7 Phil. 172, This is h% >uestions of
expropriation of private lands, e have upheld the court8s authorit% to &a!e in>uir% on hether or not lands ere private and
hether the purpose as in fact, public. +Cit% of Manila v. Chinese Co&&unit% of Manila, 4/ Phil. 74/,. (i&ilarl%, in the present
cases, the >uestion of hether or not the liftin$ of the restrainin$ orders ill pre9udice public interest and ill run counter to the
protection to labor provision of the Constitution is deter&inable b% the 9udiciar% under the poer of 9udicial revie.
"ro& the records of these petitions, it is evident that the rit of certiorari cannot be $ranted. The respondent 9ud$e8s action as
not tainted b% an% capricious or hi&sical exercise of 9ud$&ent a&ountin$ to lac! of 9urisdiction.
#t is settled to the point of bein$ ele&entar% that the onl% >uestion involved in certiorari is 9urisdiction, either ant of 9urisdiction or
excess thereof, and abuse of discretion shall arrant the issuance of the extra-ordinar% re&ed% of certiorari onl% hen the sa&e is
$rave as hen the poer is exercised in an arbitrar% or despotic &anner. . . . +"(. -ivina$racia A$ro Co&&ercial, #nc. v. Court of
Appeals, 1/4 (CRA 15/= Abi$ v. Constantino, 7 (CRA 622= Abad (antos v. Province of Tarlac, :3 Phil. 45/= Alafri; v. Nable, 36
Phil. 635= Travers <una, #nc. v. Nable, 36 Phil. 635= and Jilla Re% Transit, #nc. v. Bello, 3. (CRA 37.,.
#t is not sufficient, hoever, to resolve these petitions on hether or not there as $rave abuse of discretion tanta&ount to lac! or
exercise of 9urisdiction.
The lar$er issue re&ains. Behind the &aneuverin$ and s!ir&ishin$ of the parties lies a >uestion of poer. -oes the PPA have the
poer and authorit% to aard an exclusive stevedorin$ contract in favor of respondent 'T(#K #s the PPA-'T(# Mana$e&ent
Contract executed pursuant to P.-. No. 5.3 and <'# No. 1//.-A, validK
The facts bearin$ on this issue are not in dispute and are orth reiteratin$. The% are su&&ari;ed b% the respondent court as
follosB
x x x x x x x x x
ABefore the advent of Presidential -ecree No. ./., as a&ended b% Presidential -ecree No. 5.3, the ad&inistration and
&ana$e&ent of the (outh )arbor, Port of Manila, as under the Bureau of Custo&s. #t appears that the plaintiffs, a&on$ others,
ere en$a$ed in and alloed to operate stevedorin$ services on the basis of special per&its $ranted b% the Bureau of Custo&s
+Exhibit HA8,.
A#t further developed that the nu&ber of stevedorin$ operators or contractors &ade it difficult for the Bureau of Custo&s to
&aintain order and discipline a&on$ the& to the detri&ent of efficienc% and the desired perfor&ance at the (outh )arbor. This
appears to be true ith other ports. Thus, an in-depth stud% and anal%sis of the proble&s attendant to arrastre and stevedorin$
operations as initiated. The onl% solution appeared to be the inte$ration of contractors en$a$ed in stevedorin$ services ith the
ulti&ate ob9ective of havin$ only one stevedorin$ contractor to en$a$e in car$o-handlin$ service in a $iven port. Accordin$l%, on
Ma% 5, 123., the Bureau of Custo&s issued Custo&s Me&orandu& 'rder No. 65-3. providin$ $uidelines for the merger of the
multi-operators in the sa&e ports +Exhibit H18,.
A'n -ece&ber 67, 123., Presidential -ecree No. 5.3 as pro&ul$ated supersedin$ Presidential -ecree No. ./. hereb% the
9urisdiction of the Bureau of Custo&s concernin$ arrastre operations, a&on$ others, ere transferred and vested in the PPA.
A'n Ma% 4, 123:, the PPA, pursuant to its avoed ob9ectives, approved the PPA policies on port ad&inistration, &ana$e&ent and
operation, adoptin$ as a polic% the hori;ontal and vertical inte$ration of existin$ operators at each port +Exhibit H68 and H78,.
A'n January 19, 1977, a &e&orandu& order as issued hereb% the different port operators or contractors ho have existin$
per&its, licenses, contracts, and other !inds of &e&orandu& a$ree&ent issued b% the Bureau of Custo&s ereemporarily
allowed the continuance of their ser!ices on a hold-o!er capacity until such ti&e hen the PPA i&ple&ents its on pertinent polic%
$uidelines on the &atter +Exhibits H.8 and H:8,.
'n "ay #7, 1977, PPA Me&orandu& 'rder No. 61, series of 1233, as passed reiteratin$ the i&ple&entation of the polic% on
inte$ration to Hinsure efficienc% and econo&ic in car$o-handlin$ operation and provide better service to port users and to a&pl%
protect the interest of labor and the $overn&ent as ell.8 #t is the declared polic% that there should onl% be one stevedorin$
contractor to en$a$e in car$o-handlin$ services in a $iven port.
A'n $pril 11, 19%&, the Presidential issued <etter of #nstruction No. 1//.-A +Exhibit H38, hich directed the PPA to accelerate the
rationali;ation of all car$o-handlin$ services and to expeditiousl% evaluate all reco$ni;ed car$o-handlin$ contractors and port
related service operators under such criteria as the PPA &a% set and to deter&ine the >ualified contractor or operator in order to
insure effective utili;ation of port facilities, prevent pilfera$e and?or pinpoint responsibilit% for it and provide services &a9or ports
vital to the countr%8s trade and econo&%. This <etter of #nstruction as dictated b% experience here the Hprocedures of voluntar%
&er$ers, consolidation and?or biddin$ for the aardin$ or contractin$ of car$o-handlin$ and other port related services have
heretofore proven ineffective and resulted in prolon$ed and unproductive ran$lin$, all to the detri&ent of efficient port operations
and develop&ent.8
A'n $pril 1%, 19%&, the President issued a &e&orandu& to the PPA +Annex HB8 of the Anser and 'pposition of 'CEAN, to
sub&it its report on the inte$ration and rationali;ation of the stevedorin$ operation in Manila (outh )arbor and the sub&ission for
his approval of the resolution of the board re$ardin$ contracts entered into in connection thereith. This &e&orandu& as
dictated b% Hheav% losses suffered b% shippers as ell as the s&u$$lin$ of textiles in the (outh )arbor.8
APursuant to and in co&pliance ith the <etter of #nstruction of April 11, 125/ and the Me&orandu& of the President dated April
15, 125/, the PPA created a (pecial Evaluation Co&&ittee co&posed of Att%. -avid R. (i&on, &e&ber of the <e$al -epart&ent
of PPA and concurrentl% Assistant to the Port of Manila, as Chair&an= Mr. <eonardo Me9ia, Chief of the Co&&ercial -evelop&ent
-ivision, Port of Manila= and, Capt. 0ovito *. Ta&a%o, )arbor Master and Chief of the )arbor 'perations -ivision of the Port of
Manila, as &e&bers. The respective and individual duties of the &e&bers of the Co&&ittee ta!en in their inte$ral entirel% could
easil% su& up to an al&ost co&plete overvie of the functions of stevedorin$ contractors and place the& in a vanta$e position as
to provide proper evaluation and deter&ination of the individual perfor&ance, >ualification, and co&pliance of PPA re>uire&ents
b% each stevedorin$ operator.
AThe Co&&ittee too! into account certain factors ith their correspondin$ percenta$e ei$hts in its deter&ination, ho a&on$ the
existin$ operators, is &ost >ualified for an aard of an exclusive contract. #n connection thereith, 'CEAN as rated 2.@ toppin$
all the rest b% a ide &ar$in.
A'n $pril #%, 19%&, the Evaluation Co&&ittee sub&itted its report reco&&endin$ the conclusion of a &ana$e&ent contract ith
'CEAN bein$ the &ost >ualified +Exhibit H58, hich reco&&endation as adopted b% the PPA.
A'n June #7, 19%&, a &ana$e&ent contract as executed b% and beteen PPA and 'CEAN +Exhibit H118,.
A'n $ugust 19, 19%&, the President approved the exclusive &ana$e&ent contract beteen PPA and 'CEAN +Exhibit H1/8,.
A#n the &eanti&e, in letters dated 0ul% 17, 125/ +Exhibit HN8, and 0ul% 14, 125/ +Exhibit H"8,, P#P(# and #NTERJEN'R( ere
infor&ed of the &ana$e&ent contract ith 'CEAN as exclusive operator at the (outh harbor, Port of Manila, be$innin$ Au$ust
63, 125/.A
x x x x x x x x x
The petitioners are on extre&el% sha!% $rounds hen the% invo!e the non-i&pair&ent clause to sustain their char$e of invalidit%.
Accordin$ to the petitioners, contracts entered into ith local and forei$n clients or custo&ers ould be i&paired.
Even in the Fnited (tates durin$ the he%da% of the laisse; faire philosoph%, e are infor&ed that the A&erican (upre&e Court8s
interpretations have never alloed the contract clause to be an inflexible barrier to public re$ulation. Accordin$ to *erald *unther,
Professor of Constitutional <a at (tanford Fniversit%, historians have probabl% exa$$erated the i&pact of the earl% contract
clause decisions on A&erican econo&ic and le$al develop&ents, that the protected position of corporations in the 12th centur%
as due less to an% shield supplied b% the F.(. (upre&e Court than to le$islative unillin$ness to i&pose restraints-an
unillin$ness reflectin$ the laisse; faire philosoph% of the da%. After anal%;in$ the leadin$ cases on the contract clause fro& 151/
+"letcher v. Pec!, : Cranch 53, to 155/ +(tone v. Mississippi, 1/1 F.(. 514, he cites the 1214 decision in $tlantic Coast 'ine (.
Co. !. )olds*oro +676 F.(. .45, here the F.(. Court ruled A#t is settled that neither the contract clause nor the due process
clause has the effect of overridin$ the poer of the (tate to establish all re$ulations that are reasonabl% necessar% to secure the
health, safet%, $ood order, co&fort, or $eneral elfare of the co&&unit%= that this poer can neither be abdicated nor bar$ained
aa%, and is inalienable even b% express $rant= and that all contract and propert% ri$hts are held sub9ect to its fair exerciseA
and "anigault !. +prings +122 F.(. 437, here the sa&e Court stated that Aparties b% enterin$ itno contract &a% not stop the
le$islature fro& enactin$ las intended for the public $ood.A +(ee *unther, Cases and "aterials ,n Constitutional 'aw, 125/
Edition, pp. ..4-.3/,.
#n the Philippines, the subservience of the contract clause to the police poer enactin$ public re$ulations intended for the $eneral
elfare of the co&&unit% is even &ore clearcut.
As pointed out b% then (enior Associate, no Chief 0ustice Enri>ue M. "ernando, the laisse; faire or let alone philosoph% has no
place in our sche&e of thin$s, not even under the 127. Constitution. +(ee "ernando, he Constitution of the -hilippines, (econd
Edition, pp. 111-114, #n his concurrin$ opinion in $gricultural Credit and Cooperati!e .inancing $dministration !. Confederation of
/nions +7/ (CRA :42, :56-:57, Chief 0ustice "ernando statedB
Axxx Eith the decision reached b% us toda%, the *overn&ent is freed fro& the co&pulsion exerted b% the Bacani doctrine of the
Hconstituent-&inistrant8 test as a criterion for the t%pe of activit% in hich it &a% en$a$e. #ts constrictin$ effect is consi$ned to
oblivion. No doubts or &is$ivin$s need assail us that $overn&ental efforts to pro&ote the public eal, hether throu$h re$ulator%
le$islation of vast scope and a&plitude or throu$h the underta!in$ of business activities, ould have to face a searchin$ and
ri$orous scrutin%. #t is clear that their le$iti&ac% cannot be challen$ed on the $round alone of their bein$ offensive to the
i&plications of the laisse;-faire concept. Fnless there be a repu$nanc% then to the li&itations expressl% set forth in the
Constitution to protect individual ri$hts, the $overn&ent en9o%s a &uch ider latitude of action as to the &eans it chooses to cope
ith $rave social and econo&ic proble&s that ur$entl% press for solution. xxxA
The Manila (outh )arbor is public propert% oned b% the (tate. The operations of this pre&iere port of the countr%, includin$
stevedorin$ or!, are affected ith public interest. (tevedorin$ services are sub9ect to re$ulation and control for the public $ood
and in the interest of $eneral elfare.
Not onl% does the PPA, as an a$enc% of the (tate en9o% the presu&ption of validit% in favor of its official acts i&ple&entin$ its
statutor% charter, it has &ore than ade>uatel% proved that the inte$ration of port services-is far fro& arbitrar% and is related to the
stated $overn&ental ob9ective.
A sin$le contractor furnishin$ the stevedorin$ re>uire&ents of a port has in its favor the econo&% of scale and the &axi&u&
utili;ation of e>uip&ent and &anpoer. #n turn, effective supervision and control as ell as collection and accountin$ of the
$overn&ent share of revenues are rendered easier for PPA than here there are 67 contractors for it to oversee. As respondent
court found fro& the evidence, the &ultiple-contractor s%ste& has bred cut-throat co&petitions in the port. Fnderstandabl%, &ost
contractors had been unable to ac>uire sufficient &odern facilities, observe labor standards for their or!ers, &aintain efficienc% in
services, and pa% PPA dues. The >uestioned pro$ra& ould accelerate the rationali;ation and inte$ration of all car$o-handlin$
activities and port-related services in &a9or ports and the develop&ent of vital port facilities, pro9ects, and services.
The contention of petitioners An$lo-"il, et al., that due process as violated resultin$ to a confiscator% effect on private propert% is
li!eise ithout &erit.
#n the first place, the petitioners ere operatin$ &erel% on Ahold-overA per&its. These per&its hich ere based on PPA
&e&orandu& 'rder No. 1, dated 0anuar% 12, 1233 providedB
x x x x x x x x x
A#n vie thereof and pendin$ proper evaluation b% this 'ffice of all existin$ per&its, licenses, contracts, and other !inds of
&e&orandu& a$ree&ents issued b% the Bureau of Custo&s to the different port operators or contractors, %ou &a% te&poraril%
allo the continuance of their services on a hold-over capacit% until such ti&e hen the PPA i&ple&ents its on pertinent polic%
$uidelines on the &atter.
x x x x x x x x x
Clearl%, all hold-over per&its ere b% nature te&porar% and sub9ect to subse>uent polic% $uidelines as &a% be i&ple&ented b%
PPA. (uch should have served as sufficient notice to petitioners that, at an% ti&e, their authorities &a% be ter&inated.
Petitioners P#P#(# ould also i&press upon this Court that the certification issued to it and its fello contractors b% PPA, dated
Au$ust 7/, 1232, shoed that the% ere not onl% !ept in the dar! as to PPA8s subse>uent &ove to aard 'T(# an exclusive
contract, but that the% ere actuall% lulled into believin$ that their te&porar% per&its ere bein$ $iven pendin$ issuance of their
PT' or Per&it to 'perate.
Ee do not believe so. The second para$raph of the certification states that the hold-over per&it as still sub9ect to the
&e&orandu& >uoted above. The certification provided thatB "0n accordance with --$ "emo Circular 1o. 0, dated January 9,
1977L, the said fir& is alloed to continue operatin$ at the (outh )arbor, Port &anila.A +italics supplied.,
Ehether or not the petitioners ould be issued a PT' depended on the sound discretion of PPA and on the policies, rules and
re$ulations that the latter &a% i&ple&ent in accordance ith the statutor% $rant of poer. Petitioners, therefore, cannot be said to
have been deprived of propert% ithout due process because, in this respect, hat as $iven the& as not a propert% ri$ht but a
&ere privile$e and the% should have ta!en co$ni;ance in the (outh )arbor, their per&its can be ithdran an%ti&e the public
elfare dee&s it best to do so.
The absence of arbitrariness or bad faith is &anifest in the selection procedure adopted. The aard in fabvor of 'T(# as the
result of an evaluation of perfor&ance of existin$ contractors &ade b% a special co&&ittee created b% the PPA. The respondent
court found fro& the evidence that the &e&bers of that co&&ittee ere Ain a vanta$e position as to provide proper evaluation and
deter&ination of the individual perfor&ance, >ualification, and co&pliance of the PPA re>uire&ents b% each stevedorin$ operator.A
The co&&ittee rated 'T(# ith the hi$hest $rade of 2.@ in its evaluation.
And si$nificantl%, since no less than the President of the Philippines approved the aard of the &ana$e&ent contract to 'T(#
presu&ptivel% after throu$h consideration of all factors relevant to efficient stevedorin$ services, it is difficult for this Court to find a
violation of due process in the selection procedure. #n the lan$ua$e of the Chief 0ustice in <i& v. (ecretar% +74 (CRA 3.1, if the
tas! of overturnin$ a decision of a depart&ent head is attended ith difficult%, the burden of persuasion beco&es &uch heavier
hen the challen$ed action is encased in the ar&or of an explicit presidential approval. #n the case at bar, there is nothin$ in the
record re&otel% assailin$ the &otives of the President in $ivin$ his i&pri&atur to the aard.
#n see!in$ the nullification of the &ana$e&ent contract, the petitioners also invo!e the constitutional provision on &onopolies and
co&bination. (ection 6, Article M#J of the Constitution providesB
The state shall re$ulate or prohibit private &onopolies hen the public interest so re>uires.1Gphi1 No co&binations in restraint of
trade or unfair co&petition shall be alloed.
Private &onopolies are not necessaril% prohibited b% the Constitution. The% &a% be alloed to exist but under (tate re$ulation. A
deter&ination &ust first be &ade hether public interest re>uires that the (tate should re$ulate or prohibit private &onopolies. A
distinction prevails as re$ards co&binations in restraint of trade and unfair co&petition hich are prohibited outri$ht b% the
Constitution.
B% their ver% nature, certain public services or public utilities such those hich suppl% ater, electricit%, transportation, telephone,
tele$raph, etc. &ust &e $iven exclusive franchises if public interest is to be served. (uch exclusive franchises are not violative of
the la a$ainst &onopolies. +.5 Corpus 0uris (e$undu& 2.5-2:4,.
Neither is the &ana$e&ent contract violative of the Anti-*raft <a. #t is a contract executed in pursuance to la and the
instructions of the President to carr% out $overn&ent ob9ectives to pro&ote public interest. The act did not cause A unduein9ur%A to
the petitioners ho as explained earlier had no vested propert% ri$hts entitled to protection. There is no undue in9ur% to the
$overn&ent nor an% unarranted benefit to 'T(# consideration for PPA hich is the pa%&ent b% 'T(# of ten percent +1/@, of its
$ross inco&e, so&ethin$ hich petitioner P#P(# is loathe to pa%. The rationali;ation and effective utili;ation of port facilities is to
the advanta$e of the *overn&ent. "urther&ore, the discretion in choosin$ the stevedorin$ contractor for the south )arbor, Port
Manila, belon$s b% la to PPA. As lon$ as standards are set in deter&inin$ the contractor and such standards are reasonable and
related to the purpose for hich the% are used, the courts should not in>uire into the isdo& of PPA8s choice. The criterion used
b% PPA na&el%, the identification of a contractor ith the hi$hest potential for operatin$ an exclusive service, appears reasonable.
The factors hich ere ta!en into account in deter&inin$ the exclusive contractor are indicia of reasonableness. The% areB
Productivit%LLLLLLL. 6.@
E>uip&ent Re>uire&ent
Capabilit%LLLLLLLL 6.@
"inancial Capabilit%LLLL 1.@
Pro&ptness in Pa%in$
*overn&ent shareLLLLL 6.@
Co&pliance ith other
PPA Re>uire&entsLLLL... 6/@
1//@
#t is settled rule that unless the case 9ustifies it, the 9udiciar% ill not interfere in purel% ad&inistrative &atters. +Monar!
#nternational, #nc. v. Noriel, 57 (CRA 114, (uch discretionar% poer vested in the proper ad&inistrative bod%, in the absence of
arbitrariness and $rave abuse so as to $o be%ond the statutor% authorit%, is not sub9ect to the contrar% 9ud$&ent or control of
others. +(ee Meralco (ecurities Corporation v. (avellano, 113 (CRA 5/4,. #n $eneral, courts have no supervisor% poer over the
proceedin$s and actions of the ad&inistrative depart&ents of the $overn&ent. This is particularl% true ith respect to acts
involvin$ the exercise of 9ud$&ent or discretion, and to findin$s of fact. +Pa9o v. A$o and 'rti;, 1/5 Phil.2/.,
#n vie of the fore$oin$, e find the PPA-'T(# Mana$e&ent Contract executed on 0une 63, 125/, valid and devoid of an%
constitutional or le$al infir&it%. The respondents, hoever, should &aintain the polic% of absorption of bona-fide displaced port
or!ers in the inte$ration sche&e as &andated not onl% b% <'# No. 1//.-A but b% the polic% of the (tate to assure the ri$hts of
or!ers to securit% of tenure. +sec. 2, Art. ##, Constitution, Ee note that both PPA and 'T(# have $iven assurance in their ansers
that none of the le$iti&ate stevedores ould be displaced fro& or! althou$h the% added that their bonafide stevedores should
9oin PEFP. Ehich union a or!er or various or!ers should 9oin cannot be ordained b% this Court in these petitions here the
basic issue is the validit% of the exclusive stevedorin$ contract $iven to one operator for one port. This &atter ill have to be
eventuall% threshed out b% the or!ers the&selves and the Ministr% of <abor and E&plo%&ent before it &a% be elevated to us, if
ever. )oever, e reiterate the $uidelines earlier issued that no bona fide stevedore or or!er should be deprived of e&plo%&ent
he used to en9o% si&pl% because of the execution and i&ple&entation of the disputed Mana$e&ent Contract. This absorption of
bona fide or!ers is an act of social 9ustice. Ehen a person has no propert%, his 9ob &a% possibl% be his onl% possession or
&eans of livelihood. Therefore, he should be protected a$ainst an% arbitrar% and un9ust deprivation of his 9ob. +(ee Bondoc v.
People8s Ban! and Trust Co&pan%, 1/7 (CRA .22,
As to the conte&pt char$es, e note that the 'rder of this Court dated 'ctober 61, 125/ alloed Apetitioners-intervenorsA
&eanin$ DAMA-A or!ers to or! at the (outh )arbor pendin$ resolution of this case, Athe order of respondent 9ud$e xxx as ell
as the i&ple&entin$ letter of Philippine Ports Authorit% xxx to the contrar% notithstandin$.A #t is not clear fro& said orders that the
petitioners ho are stevedorin$ operators and contactors ere also specificall% included. There as no &ention of the& bein$
included and alloed ith DAMA-A or!ers to resu&e operations at the (outh )arbor. The petitioners read into the order
so&ethin$ hich as not there. The onl% clear i&port of the 'rder as that DAMA-A or!ers &ust be alloed to or!
notithstandin$ an% contrar% provisions in the Mana$e&ent Contract, a situation brou$ht about b% the liftin$ of the restrainin$
orders, the denial of the petition for preli&inar% in9unction, and the i&ple&entin$ letter of PPA. #t is a settled rule that a part%
cannot be punished for conte&pt unless the act hich is forbidden or re>uired to be done is clearl% and exactl% defined, so that
there can be no reasonable doubt or uncertaint% as to hat specific act or thin$ is forbidden or re>uired. +<ee Cic! )on v. Collector
of Custo&s, 41 Phil. .45, citin$ F.(. v. Achi-son, etc. R. Co., 14: "ed. 13:, 157= 17 C0 1.,
E)ERE"'RE, the petitions in *.R. No. .42.5 and *.R. No. .42:: are hereb% -#(M#((E- for lac! of &erit. The respondents
are, hoever, directed to co&pl% ith the $uidelines in the above decision on the absorption of bonafide stevedores and as thus
&odifies, the te&porar% restrainin$ order dated 'ctober 61, 125/ is &ade PERMANENT. No costs.
(' 'R-ERE-.