Corona vs.

United Harbor Pilots Association

emmanuelgbaccaycpamba
Facts.
1. Under its charter, the Philippine Ports Authority has the power of control, regulation and
supervision of pilots and the pilotage profession. Pursuant thereto, PPA issued AO 04-92,
limiting the term of appointment of harbor pilots to one year subject to yearly renewal or
cancellation.
2. Respondents United Harbor Pilots Association and the Manila Pilots Association questioned
the PPA with the DOTC but where informed that the matter of reviewing, recalling or annulling
PPAs administrative issuances lies exclusively with its BODs as its governing body.
3. Appeal was made to the Office of the President. At first, the OP issued an order directing the
PPA to hold in abeyance the implementation of the PPA. However, it was later lifted thru Assist.
Sec. for Legal Affairs Renato C. Corona which concluded that PPA, in issuing the AO, was
merely implementing its mandate.
4. Respondents filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction with prayer for the
issuance of a TRO and damages, before Branch 6 of RTC Manila.
5. The RTC ruled that: (1) the respondents (herein petitioners) have acted in excess of
jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion and in a CAW manner in promulgating the AO
including all its implementing Memoranda, Circulars and Orders; (2) AO null and void; and (3)
permanently enjoined from implementing the same.
CONTENTION OF THE RTC:
a. Pilotage has been recognized as a profession and therefore a property right.
Abbreviating the term within which that privilege may be exercised would be an interference
with this property right.
Any withdrawal or alteration of such property right must be strictly made in accordance with
the constitutional mandate of due process.
To the court, this was apparently not followed when PPA did not conduct public hearings prior
to the issuance of the AO.
Ruling:
Matters of Procedure
1. As regards the procedural aspect of the enactment, (J) as long as the party was given the
opportunity to defend its interests in due course, he cannot be said to have been denied of due

process. Moreover, this constitutional mandate is deemed satisfied if a person is granted an

opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.
In this case, respondents questioned the AO no less than 4 times.
2. Moreover, as a general rule, notice and hearing, as the fundamental requirements of procedural
process, are essential only when an administrative body exercise its quasi-judicial function. In
the performance of oh its executive or legislative functions, such as issuing rules and regulations,
an Admin body need not comply with the requirements of notice and hearing.
Matters of Substance
1. After passing five examinations and undergoing years of OJT, pilots are granted a license in
the form of an appointment which they could use until retirement, unless sooner revoked by the
PPA for mental or physical unfitness. This is therefore a vested right.
2. It is readily apparent that the AO unduly restricts the right of harbour pilots to enjoy their
profession before their compulsory retirement.
3. The pre-evaluation cancellation of their licence (Annual cancellation of their license which
can be temporary or permanent depending on the outcome of their performance evaluation)
primarily makes the AO unreasonable and constitutionally infirm. It is a deprivation of property
without due process of law.