34.

CORONA VS UNITED HARBOR PILOTS

HON. RENATO C. CORONA, in his capacity as Assistant Secretary for Legal Affairs, HON. JESUS B. GARCIA, in
his capacity as Acting Secretary, Department of Transportation and Communications, and ROGELIO A. DAYAN,
in his capacity as General Manager of Philippine Ports Authority, petitioners, vs . UNITED HARBOR PILOTS
ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES and MANILA PILOTS ASSOCIATION, respondents.

[G.R. No. 111953. December 12, 1997.]

ROMERO, J p:

Facts:
July 11, 1974 –PPA was created by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 505.

December 23, 1975 – P.D. No. 857 was issued revising the PPA's charter. Pursuant to its power of control,
regulation, and supervision of pilots and the pilotage profession, the PPA promulgated PPA-AO-03-85 on
March 21, 1985, which embodied the "Rules and Regulations Governing Pilotage Services, the Conduct of
Pilots and Pilotage Fees in Philippine Ports." These rules mandate, inter alia, that aspiring pilots must be
holders of pilot licenses 3 and must train as probationary pilots in outports for three months and in the Port
of Manila for four months. It is only after they have achieved satisfactory performance that they are given
permanent and regular appointments by the PPA itself to exercise harbor pilotage until they reach the age
of 70 , unless sooner removed by reason of mental or physical unfitness by the PPA General Manager.

July 15, 1992 – PPA General Manager Rogelio A. Dayan issued PPA-AO No. 04-92 on, whose avowed policy
was to "instill effective discipline and thereby afford better protection to the port users through the
improvement of pilotage services." This was implemented by providing therein that "all existing regular
appointments which have been previously issued either by the Bureau of Customs or the PPA shall remain
valid up to 31 December 1992 only" and that "all appointments to harbor pilot positions in all pilotage
districts shall, henceforth, be only for a term of one (1) year from date of effectivity subject to yearly
renewal or cancellation by the Authority after conduct of a rigid evaluation of performance."

August 12, 1992 – United Harbor Pilots Association and the Manila Pilots Association (respondents),
through Capt. Alberto C. Compas, questioned PPA-AO No. 04-92 before the Department of Transportation
and Communication (DOTC).

DOTC: the matter was within the jurisdiction of the Board of Directors of the PPA.

Compas appealed this ruling to the Office of the President (OP), reiterating his arguments before the DOTC.

OP (December 23, 1992): issued an order directing the PPA to hold in abeyance the implementation of PPA-
AO No. 04-92.

OP (March 17, 1993): through 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 prayer for the issuance of a
temporary restraining order and damages before the RTC.
RTC: rendered judgment declaring PPA Administrative Order 04-92 and its implementing Circulars and
Orders null and void

Issue:
W/N the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) violate respondents' right to exercise their profession and their
right to due process of law in issuing PPA-AO No. 04-92 which limits the term of appointment of harbor
pilots to one year subject to yearly renewal or cancellation?

Ruling:
Yes. The Court is convinced that PPA-AO No. 04-92 was issued in stark disregard of respondents' right against
deprivation of property without due process of law. Pilotage, just like other professions, may be practiced
only by duly licensed individuals. Licensure is "the granting of license especially to practice a profession." It
is also "the system of granting licenses (as for professional practice) in accordance with established
standards." A license is a right or permission granted by some competent authority to carry on a business
or do an act which, without such license, would be illegal. Before harbor pilots can earn a license to practice
their profession, they literally have to pass through the proverbial eye of a needle by taking, not one but
five examinations, each followed by actual training and practice. Their license is granted in the form of an
appointment which allows them to engage in pilotage until they retire at the age 70 years. This is a vested
right. Under the terms of PPA-AO No. 04-92, "(a)ll existing regular appointments which have been
previously issued by the Bureau of Customs or the PPA shall remain valid up to 31 December 1992 only,"
and "(a)ll appointments to harbor pilot positions in all pilotage districts shall, henceforth, be only for a term
of one (1) year from date of effectivity subject to renewal or cancellation by the Authority after conduct of
a rigid evaluation of performance."
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 five 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
unfitness. 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 cancelled. Hence, the use of the term "renewal". It is this
pre-evaluation cancellation which primarily makes PPA-AO No. 04-92 unreasonable and constitutionally
infirm. In a real sense, it is a deprivation of property without due process of law.
The Court notes that PPA-AO No. 04-92 and PPA-MO No. 08-92 are already covered by PPA-AO No. 03-85,
which is still operational. Respondents are correct in pointing out that PPA-AO No. 04-92 is a "surplusage"
and, therefore, an unnecessary enactment. PPA-AO 03-85 is a comprehensive order setting forth the "Rules
and Regulations Governing Pilotage Services, the Conduct of Pilots and Pilotage Fees in Philippine Ports." It
provides, inter alia, for the qualification, appointment, performance evaluation, disciplining and removal of
harbor pilots — matters which are duplicated in PPA-AO No. 04-92 and its implementing memorandum
order. Since it adds nothing new or substantial, PPA-AO No. 04-92 must be struck down.
36. DOMINGO VS. GARLITOS
MELECIO R. DOMINGO, as Commissioner of Internal Revenue, petitioner, vs. HON. LORENZO C. GARLITOS ,
in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, and SIMEONA K. PRICE, as administratrix of the
Intestate Estate of the late Walter Scott Price, respondents.

[G.R. No. L-18994. June 29, 1963.]

LABRADOR, J p:

Facts:
In Melecio R. Domingo vs. Hon. Judge S. C. Moscoso, 106 Phil., 1138, this Court declared as final and
executory the order for the payment by the estate of the estate and inheritance taxes, charges and
penalties amounting to P40, 058.55, issued by the Court of First Instance of Leyte in special proceedings
No. 14 entitled "In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of the Late Walter Scott Price." In order to enforce
the claims against the estate the fiscal presented a petition dated June 21, 1961, to the court below for the
execution of the judgment. The petition was, however, denied by the court which held that the execution
is not justifiable as the Government is indebted to the estate under administration in the amount of P262,
200.

Issue:
W/N the petitioner has the right to execute the judgment for taxes against the estate of the deceased
Walter Scott Price?

Ruling:
No. The ordinary procedure by which to settle claims or indebtedness against the estate of a deceased
person, as an inheritance tax, is for the claimant to present a claim before the probate court so that said
court may order the administrator to pay the amount thereof. The legal basis for such a procedure is the
fact that in the testate or intestate proceedings to settle the estate of a deceased person, the properties
belonging to the estate are under the jurisdiction of the court and such jurisdiction continues until said
properties have been distributed among the heirs entitled thereto. During the pendency of the proceedings
all the estate is in custodia legis and the proper procedure is not to allow the sheriff, in case of a court
judgment, to seize the properties but to ask the court for an order to require the administrator to pay the
amount due from the estate and required to be paid.

Moreover, the fact that the court having jurisdiction of the estate had found that the claim of the estate
against the Government has been recognized and an amount of P262, 200 has already been appropriated
for the purpose by a corresponding law (Rep. Act No. 2700). Under the above circumstances, both the claim
of the Government for inheritance taxes and the claim of the intestate for services rendered have already
become overdue and demandable as well as fully liquidated. Compensation, therefore, takes place by
operation of law, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 1279 and 1290 of the Civil Code, and both
debts are extinguished to the concurrent amount.
35. REVIEW CENTER ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES VS EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY
REVIEW CENTER ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA
and COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION represented by its Chairman ROMULO L. NERI, respondents.

CPA REVIEW SCHOOL OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (CPAR), PROFESSIONAL REVIEW AND TRAINING CENTER, INC.
(PRTC), ReSA REVIEW SCHOOL, INC. (ReSA), CRC-ACE REVIEW SCHOOL, INC. (CRC-ACE), petitioners-
intervenors.

PIMSAT COLLEGES, respondent-intervenor.

[G.R. No. 180046. April 2, 2009.]

CARPIO, J p:

Facts:
June 11 & 12, 2006 - the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) conducted the Nursing Board
Examinations nationwide. In June 2006, licensure applicants wrote the PRC to report that handwritten
copies of two sets of examinations were circulated during the examination period among the examinees
reviewing at the R.A. Gapuz Review Center and Inress Review Center. George Cordero, Inress Review
Center's President, was then the incumbent President of the Philippine Nurses Association. The examinees
were provided with a list of 500 questions and answers in two of the examinations' five subjects, particularly
Tests III (Psychiatric Nursing) and V (Medical-Surgical Nursing). The PRC later admitted the leakage and
traced it to two Board of Nursing members.

19 June 2006 - the PRC released the results of the Nursing Board Examinations.

8 August 2006 - the Court of Appeals restrained the PRC from proceeding with the oath-taking of the
successful examinees set on 22 August 2006.

Consequently, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (President Arroyo) replaced all the members of the PRC's
Board of Nursing. President Arroyo also ordered the examinees to re-take the Nursing Board Examinations.

8 September 2006 - President Arroyo issued EO 566 which authorized the CHED to supervise the
establishment and operation of all review centers and similar entities in the Philippines.

3 November 2006 – the CHED, through its then Chairman Carlito S. Puno (Chairman Puno), approved CHED
Memorandum Order No. 49, series of 2006 (IRR).

The Review Center Association of the Philippines (petitioner), an organization of independent review
centers, asked the CHED to "amend, if not withdraw" the IRR arguing that giving permits to operate a review
center to Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) or consortia of HEIs and professional organizations will
effectively abolish independent review centers.

7 May 2007 - the CHED approved the RIRR.

22 August 2007 - petitioner filed before the CHED a Petition to Clarify/Amend Revised Implementing Rules
and Regulations

26 October 2007 - petitioner filed a petition for Prohibition and Mandamus before this Court praying for
the annulment of the RIRR, the declaration of EO 566 as invalid and unconstitutional, and the prohibition
against CHED from implementing the RIRR.

Issue/s:
W/N EO 566 is an unconstitutional exercise by the Executive of legislative power as it expands the CHED's
jurisdiction?
W/N the RIRR is an invalid exercise of the Executive's rule-making Power?

Ruling:

EO 566 Expands the Coverage of RA 7722

HEIs refer to degree-granting institutions, or those offering tertiary degree or post-secondary programs. In
fact, Republic Act No. 8292 or the Higher Education Modernization Act of 1997 covers chartered state
universities and colleges. State universities and colleges primarily offer degree courses and programs. The
scopes of EO 566 and the RIRR clearly expand the CHED's coverage under RA 7722. The CHED's coverage
under RA 7722 is limited to public and private institutions of higher education and degree-granting
programs in all public and private post-secondary educational institutions. EO 566 directed the CHED to
formulate a framework for the regulation of review centers and similar entities. The definition of a review
center under EO 566 shows that it refers to one which offers "a program or course of study that is intended
to refresh and enhance the knowledge or competencies and skills of reviewees obtained in the formal
school setting in preparation for the licensure examinations" given by the PRC. It also covers the operation
or conduct of review classes or courses provided by individuals whether for a fee or not in preparation for
the licensure examinations given by the PRC. A review center is not an institution of higher learning as
contemplated by RA 7722. It does not offer a degree-granting program that would put it under the
jurisdiction of the CHED. A review course is only intended to "refresh and enhance the knowledge or
competencies and skills of reviewees." A reviewee is not even required to enroll in a review center or to
take a review course prior to taking an examination given by the PRC. Even if a reviewee enrolls in a review
center, attendance in a review course is not mandatory. The reviewee is not required to attend each review
class. He is not required to take or pass an examination, and neither is he given a grade. He is also not
required to submit any thesis or dissertation. Thus, programs given by review centers could not be
considered "programs . . . of higher learning" that would put them under the jurisdiction of the CHED.
Further, the "similar entities" in EO 566 cover centers providing "review or tutorial services" in areas not
covered by licensure examinations given by the PRC, which include, although not limited to, college
entrance examinations, Civil Services examinations, and tutorial services. These review and tutorial services
hardly qualify as programs of higher learning.

Usurpation of Legislative Power

Section 20, Title I of Book III of EO 292 speaks of other powers vested in the President under the law. The
exercise of the President's residual powers under this provision requires legislation, as the provision clearly
states that the exercise of the President's other powers and functions has to be "provided for under the
law". There is no law granting the President the power to amend the functions of the CHED. The President
may not amend RA 7722 through an Executive Order without a prior legislation granting her such power. The
President has no inherent or delegated legislative power to amend the functions of the CHED under RA 7722.
Legislative power is the authority to make laws and to alter or repeal them, and this power is vested with
the Congress.
Since EO 566 is an invalid exercise of legislative power, the RIRR is also an invalid exercise of the CHED's
quasi-legislative power. Administrative agencies exercise their quasi-legislative or rule-making power
through the promulgation of rules and regulations. The CHED may only exercise its rule-making power
within the confines of its jurisdiction under RA 7722. The RIRR covers review centers and similar entities
which are neither institutions of higher education nor institutions offering degree-granting programs.

Exercise of Police Power

Police power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, education, good order or safety, and
the general welfare of the people flows from the recognition that salus populi est suprema lex — the
welfare of the people is the supreme law. Police power primarily rests with the legislature although it may
be exercised by the President and administrative boards by virtue of a valid delegation. Here, no delegation
of police power exists under RA 7722 authorizing the President to regulate the operations of non-degree
granting review centers.
34. CORONA VS UNITED HARBOR PILOTS
Summary: 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.

Doctrine: 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 "preevaluation" 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.

35. REVIEW CENTER ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

Summary: Leakage during June 2006 PRC’s Nursing Board Examination. PGMA replaced all the members of
the PRC's Board of Nursing. President Arroyo also ordered the examinees to re-take the Nursing Board
Examinations. PGMA issued EO 566 which authorized the CHED to supervise the establishment and
operation of all review centers and similar entities in the Philippines.
Doctrine: (1) The President may not amend RA 7722 through an Executive Order without a prior legislation
granting her such power. The President has no inherent or delegated legislative power to amend the
functions of the CHED under RA 7722. Legislative power is the authority to make laws and to alter or repeal
them, and this power is vested with the Congress. (2) Police power primarily rests with the legislature
although it may be exercised by the President and administrative boards by virtue of a valid delegation. Here,
no delegation of police power exists under RA 7722 authorizing the President to regulate the operations of
non-degree granting review centers.

36. DOMINGO VS. GARLITOS

Summary: The Court declared as final and executory the order for the payment by the estate of the estate
and inheritance taxes, charges and penalties amounting to P40,058.55. However, the execution is not
justifiable as the Government is indebted to the estate under administration in the amount of P262,200.
Doctrine: Both the claim of the Government for inheritance taxes and the claim of the intestate for services
rendered have already become overdue and demandable as well as fully liquidated. Compensation,
therefore, takes place by operation of law, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 1279 and 1290 of
the Civil Code, and both debts are extinguished to the concurrent amount.