Albano vs. Reyes (digest)

Albano vs. Reyes

175 SCRA 264 | Paras, J.

Facts:

The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) board directed the PPA management to prepare for the public bidding of the development, management and operation of the Manila International Container Terminal (MICT) at the Port of Manila. A Bidding Committee was formed by the DOTC for the public bidding. After evaluation of several bids, the Bidding Committee recommended the award of the contract to respondent International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI). Accordingly, Rainerio Reyes, then DOTC secretary, declared the ICTSI consortium as the winning bidder.

On May 18, 1988, the President of the Philippines approved the same with directives that PPA shall still have the responsibility for planning, detailed engineering, construction, expansion, rehabilitation and capital dredging of the port, as well as the determination of how the revenues of the port system shall be allocated for future works; and the contractor shall not collect taxes and duties except that in the case of wharfage or tonnage dues.

Petitioner Albano, as taxpayer and Congressman, assailed the legality of the award and claimed that since the MICT is a public utility, it needs a legislative franchise before it can legally operate as a public utility.

ISSUE: Whether a franchise is needed for the operation of the MICT?

Held: No. While the PPA has been tasked under E.O. No. 30 with the management and operation of the MICT and to undertake the provision of cargo handling and port related services thereat, the law provides that such shall be “in accordance with P.D. 857 and other applicable laws and regulations”. P.D. 857 expressly empowers the PPA to provide services within Port Districts “whether on its own, by contract, or otherwise”.

Even if the MICT is considered a public utility, its operation would not necessarily need a franchise from the legislature because the law has granted certain administrative agencies the power to grant licenses for or to authorize the operation of public utilities. Reading E.O. 30 and P.D. 857 together, it is clear that the lawmaker has empowered the PPA to undertake by itself the operation and management of the MICP or to authorize its operation and management by another by contract or other means, at its option.

Doctrine: The law granted certain administrative agencies the power to grant licenses for the operation of public utilities. Theory that MICT is a “wharf” or a “dock”, as contemplated under the Public Service Act, would not necessarily call for a franchise from the Legislative Branch.

©2012. Fair use is permissible but proper attribution is required.