Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 56 views

    42 Corona vs. Uhpap

    Uploaded by

    Christina Aure
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Philippine Ports Authority violated the rights of harbor pilots by issuing PPA Administrative Order No. 04-92. The order limited harbor pilot licenses to one-year terms subject to renewal based on a performance evaluation. However, this constituted deprivation of property without due process as the licenses were canceled before pilots could be evaluated for renewal. As such, the administrative order unduly restricted the harbor pilots' right to practice their profession and was declared unconstitutional.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    42 Corona vs. Uhpap

    Uploaded by

    Christina Aure
    56 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Philippine Ports Authority violated the rights of harbor pilots by issuing PPA Administrative Order No. 04-92. The order limited harbor pilot licenses to one-year terms subject to renewal based on a performance evaluation. However, this constituted deprivation of property without due process as the licenses were canceled before pilots could be evaluated for renewal. As such, the administrative order unduly restricted the harbor pilots' right to practice their profession and was declared unconstitutional.

    Original Title

    42 CORONA VS. UHPAP.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the Philippine Ports Authority violated the rights of harbor pilots by issuing PPA Administrative Order No. 04-92. The order limited harbor pilot licenses to one-year terms subject to renewal based on a performance evaluation. However, this constituted deprivation of property without due process as the licenses were canceled before pilots could be evaluated for renewal. As such, the administrative order unduly restricted the harbor pilots' right to practice their profession and was declared unconstitutional.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    56 views2 pages

    42 Corona vs. Uhpap

    Uploaded by

    Christina Aure
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Philippine Ports Authority violated the rights of harbor pilots by issuing PPA Administrative Order No. 04-92. The order limited harbor pilot licenses to one-year terms subject to renewal based on a performance evaluation. However, this constituted deprivation of property without due process as the licenses were canceled before pilots could be evaluated for renewal. As such, the administrative order unduly restricted the harbor pilots' right to practice their profession and was declared unconstitutional.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    HON. RENATO CORONA vs.

    UNITED HARBOR PILOTS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES and MANILA


    PILOTS ASSOCIATION

    Facts:
    On 1992, PPA General Manager Rogelio A. Dayan issued PPA-AO No. 04-92, limiting the term of
    Appointment of harbor pilots to one (1) year subject to renewal or cancellation by the authority after conduct
    of a rigid evaluation of the appointee's performance. Respondents, through Capt. Alberto C. Compas,
    questioned PPA-AO No. 04- 92 before the Department of Transportation and Communication, but they
    were informed by the Department Secretary that the matter of reviewing, recalling or annulling PPA's
    administrative issuances lies exclusively with its Board of Directors as its governing body. Respondents
    appealed to the Office of the President which ordered the PPA to hold in abeyance the implementation of
    the administrative order. However, the Office of the President through then Assistant Executive Secretary
    for Legal Affairs Renato C. Corona dismissed the appeal/petition and lifted the restraining order issued
    earlier. Respondents filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction with the Regional Trial Court
    of Manila. The trial court ruled that herein petitioners have acted in excess of jurisdiction and with grave
    abuse of discretion in promulgating PPA AO No. 04-92 including its implementing memoranda. The trial
    court also declared the administrative order null and void and permanently enjoined its implementation.
    Hence, herein petitioners elevated the case to the Court on certiorari, whereby they contend that the
    respondents have acted in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion and in capricious,
    whimsical and arbitrary manner of promulgating said administrative order.
    Issue:
    Whether the Philippine Ports Authority violate respondents' right to exercise their profession and their right
    to due process of law?
    Ruling:
    The Supreme Court ruled that PPA-AO No. 04-92 was issued in utter disregard of respondent's right against
    deprivation of property without due process of law. The Court held that the provision limiting the term of
    appointment of harbor pilots unduly restricts the right of harbor pilots to enjoy their profession before their
    retirement. Renewal of the license is now dependent on a rigid evaluation of performance which is
    conducted only after the license has been canceled. Hence, the use of the term "renewal." It is the "pre-
    evaluation" cancellation which primarily makes PPA-AO No. 04-92 unreasonable and constitutionally
    infirm. In a real sense, it is deprivation of property without due process of law. Petition denied.

    Notes:
    1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; PPA-AO NO. 04-92; DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL; THE PRE-
    EVALUATION CANCELLATION OF THE HARBOR PILOTS' LICENSES IS WHAT PRIMARILY MAKES THE
    ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER UNREASONABLE AND CONSTITUTIONALLY INFIRM; IT CONSTITUTES
    DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. — It is readily apparent that PPA-AO No.
    04-92 unduly restricts the right of harbor pilots to enjoy their profession before their compulsory
    retirement. In the past, they enjoyed a measure of security knowing that after passing Bve examinations
    and undergoing years of on-the-job training, they would have a license which they could use until their
    retirement, unless sooner revoked by the PPA for mental or physical unBtness. Under the new issuance,
    they have to contend with an annual cancellation of their license which can be temporary or permanent
    depending on the outcome of their performance evaluation. Veteran pilots and neophytes alike are
    suddenly confronted with one-year terms which ipso facto expire at the end of that period. Renewal of
    their license is now dependent on a "rigid evaluation of performance" which is conducted only after the
    license has already been canceled. Hence, the use of the term "renewal." It is this pre-evaluation
    cancellation which primarily makes PPA-AO No. 04-92 unreasonable and constitution.

    2. ID.; ID.; AN UNNECESSARY ENACTMENT; SINCE THE LAW ADDS NOTHING NEW OR SUBSTANTIAL IT
    MUST BE STRUCK DOWN.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy