Aboitiz Shipping v.

City of Cebu
G.R. No. L-14526. March 31, 1965
FACTS:
Ordinance No. 207 was purportedly enacted by the Municipal Board on August 14, 1956 and approved by the City Mayor on the
following August 27 where plaintiffs were made to pa wharfage charges under protest since September 1, 1956 and on May 8,
1957. The plaintiffs filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila to have the said void, its enforcement enjoined in so far
as the wharves, docks and ordinance declared other landing places belonging to the National Government were concerned, and
all the amounts thus far collected by defendants refunded to them. Appellees allege that the Municipal Board's authority to pass
the ordinance is claimed by them under section 17 (w) of the charter of the City of Cebu, which grants them the legislative power
To fix the charges to be paid by all watercrafts landing at or using public wharves, docks, levees, or landing places.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the City of Cebu, under its charter, may provide by ordinance for the collection of wharfage from vessels that
dock at the public wharves of piers located in said city but owned by the National Government.
HELD:
No. The right to collect the wharfage belongs to the National Government. It is unreasonable to conclude that the legislature,
simply because it employed the term "public wharves" in section 17 (w) of the charter of the City of Cebu, thereby authorized the
latter to collect wharfage irrespective of the ownership of the wharves involved. The National Government did not surrender such
ownership to the city; and there is no justifiable ground to read into the statute an intention to burden shipowners, such as
appellants, with the obligation of paying twice for the same purpose.
Legislative intent must be ascertained from a consideration of the statute as a whole and not of an isolated part or a particular
provision alone. This is a cardinal rule of statutory construction. For taken in the abstract, a word or phrase might easily convey a
meaning quite different from the one actually intended and evident when the word or phrase is considered with those with which
it is associated. Thus an apparently general provision may have a limited application if viewed together with other provisions.
Hence, Ordinance No. 207 of the City of Cebu is declared null and void, and appellees are ordered to refund to appellants all
amounts collected thereunder and to refrain from making such collection.