Albano Vs Reyes 175 SCRA 264

Albano vs Reyes 175 SCRA 264
G.R. No. 83551 July 11, 1989 RODOLFO B. ALBANO, petitioner, vs. HON. RAINERIO O. REYES,
PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY, INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES, INC., E.
RAZON, INC., ANSCOR CONTAINER CORPORATION, and SEALAND SERVICES. LTD., respondents.
FACTS: PPA Board directed the PPA management to prepare the invitation to bid and
requirements necessary for the public bidding of the development, management and operation
of the MICT at the Port of Manila. Board Chairman, Secretary Rainerio O. Reyes was also
authorized to oversee the preparation of the technical and the documentation requirements for
the MICT leasing as well as to implement this project. The PPA published the Invitation to Bid
several times in a newspaper of general circulation which publication included the reservation
by the PPA of "the right to reject any or all bids and to waive any informality in the bids or to
accept such bids which may be considered most advantageous to the government."
Seven companies submitted bids and the Bidding Committee recommended the award of the
contract to develop, manage and operate the MICT to International Container Terminal Services,
Inc. (ICTSI) as having offered the best Technical and Financial Proposal. Secretary declared the
ICTSI consortium as the winning bidder. The President of the Philippines approved the proposed
MICT Contract. PPA and the ICTSI perfected the MICT Contract incorporating therein by
"clarificatory guidelines" the aforementioned presidential directives.
Rodolfo A. Albano filed a petition as citizen and taxpayer and as a member of the House of
Representatives, assailing the award of the MICT contract to the ICTSI by the PPA. Albano claims
that since the MICT is a public utility, it needs a legislative franchise before it can legally operate
as a public utility, pursuant to Article 12, Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution.
ISSUE: Whether or not MICT need a legislative franchise to legally operate as a public utility
HELD: No. A review of the applicable provisions of law indicates that a franchise specially
granted by Congress is not necessary for the operation of the Manila International Container
Port (MICP) by a private entity, a contract entered into by the PPA and such entity constituting
substantial compliance with the law. while the PPA has been tasked, under E.O. No. 30, with the
management and operation of the Manila International Port Complex and to undertake the
providing 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." On the other hand,
P.D. No. 857 expressly empowers the PPA to provide services within Port Districts "whether on
its own, by contract, or otherwise". Therefore, under the terms of E.O. No. 30 and P.D. No. 857,
the PPA may contract with the ICTSI for the management, operation and development of the
MICP.
Even if the MICP be considered a public utility, or a public service on the theory that it is a
"wharf' or a "dock” as contemplated under the Public Service Act, its operation would not
necessarily call for a franchise from the Legislative Branch. Franchises issued by Congress are not
required before each and every public utility may operate. Thus, the law has granted certain
administrative agencies the power to grant licenses for or to authorize the operation of certain
public utilities.
The contract between the PPA and ICTSI, coupled with the President's written approval,
constitute the necessary authorization for ICTSI's operation and management of the MICP. The
award of the MICT contract approved by no less than the President of the Philippines herself
enjoys the legal presumption of validity and regularity of official action. In the case at bar, there
is no evidence which clearly shows the constitutional infirmity of the questioned act of
government. For these reasons the contention that the contract between the PPA and ICTSI is
illegal in the absence of a franchise from Congress appears bereft of any legal basis. Petition is
dismissed.

Albano Vs Reyes 175 SCRA 264

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Albano Vs Reyes 175 SCRA 264

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Albano Vs Reyes 175 SCRA 264

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Albano vs Reyes 175 SCRA 264

You might also like