Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 28 views

    Corona

    Uploaded by

    Chris Inocencio
    PPA-AO No. 04-92 limited harbor pilots' term of appointment to one year subject to yearly renewal or cancellation. Respondents questioned this, and the OP initially ordered PPA to hold implementation. However, the OP later dismissed the appeal. Respondents then filed a case in RTC. The issue was whether PPA-AO No. 04-92 was constitutional. The Supreme Court held that it was not, as it deprived harbor pilots of their property right to practice their profession without due process, by not providing notice and a hearing. While notice and hearing are not required for rule-making, PPA-AO No. 04-92 unduly restricted harbor pilots' right to enjoy their profession before retirement

    Copyright:

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

    Corona

    Uploaded by

    Chris Inocencio
    28 views1 page
    PPA-AO No. 04-92 limited harbor pilots' term of appointment to one year subject to yearly renewal or cancellation. Respondents questioned this, and the OP initially ordered PPA to hold implementation. However, the OP later dismissed the appeal. Respondents then filed a case in RTC. The issue was whether PPA-AO No. 04-92 was constitutional. The Supreme Court held that it was not, as it deprived harbor pilots of their property right to practice their profession without due process, by not providing notice and a hearing. While notice and hearing are not required for rule-making, PPA-AO No. 04-92 unduly restricted harbor pilots' right to enjoy their profession before retirement

    Original Description:

    corona vs united harbour pilot

    Original Title

    corona

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    PPA-AO No. 04-92 limited harbor pilots' term of appointment to one year subject to yearly renewal or cancellation. Respondents questioned this, and the OP initially ordered PPA to hold implementation. However, the OP later dismissed the appeal. Respondents then filed a case in RTC. The issue was whether PPA-AO No. 04-92 was constitutional. The Supreme Court held that it was not, as it deprived harbor pilots of their property right to practice their profession without due process, by not providing notice and a hearing. While notice and hearing are not required for rule-making, PPA-AO No. 04-92 unduly restricted harbor pilots' right to enjoy their profession before retirement

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    28 views1 page

    Corona

    Uploaded by

    Chris Inocencio
    PPA-AO No. 04-92 limited harbor pilots' term of appointment to one year subject to yearly renewal or cancellation. Respondents questioned this, and the OP initially ordered PPA to hold implementation. However, the OP later dismissed the appeal. Respondents then filed a case in RTC. The issue was whether PPA-AO No. 04-92 was constitutional. The Supreme Court held that it was not, as it deprived harbor pilots of their property right to practice their profession without due process, by not providing notice and a hearing. While notice and hearing are not required for rule-making, PPA-AO No. 04-92 unduly restricted harbor pilots' right to enjoy their profession before retirement

    Copyright:

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

    CORONA VS UNITED HARBOUR PILOT

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

    FACTS: : IN ISSUING ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 04-92 (PPA-AO NO. 04-92), LIMITING THE TERM OF
    APPOINTMENT OF HARBOR PILOTS TO ONE YEAR SUBJECT TO YEARLY RENEWAL OR CANCELLATION
    ON AUGUST 12, 1992, RESPONDENTS UNITED HARBOUR PILOTS ASSOCIATION AND THE MANILA PILOTS
    ASSOCIATION, THROUGH CAPT. ALBERTO C. COMPAS, QUESTIONED PPA-AO NO. 04-92
    ON DECEMBER 23, 1992, THE OP ISSUED AN ORDER DIRECTING THE PPA TO HOLD IN ABEYANCE THE
    IMPLEMENTATION OF PPA-AO NO. 04-92ON
    MARCH 17, 1993, THE OP, 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 PRAYER FOR THE
    ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND DAMAGES, BEFORE BRANCH 6 OF THE REGIONAL
    TRIAL COURT

    ISSUE: WON PPA-AO-04-92 IS CONSTITUTIONAL

    HELD: 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. THE SUPREME
    COURT SAID THAT IN ORDER TO FALL WITHIN THE AEGIS OF THIS PROVISION, TWO CONDITIONS MUST
    CONCUR, NAMELY, THAT THERE IS A DEPRIVATION AND THAT SUCH DEPRIVATION IS DONE WITHOUT PROPER
    OBSERVANCE OF DUE PROCESS. AS A GENERAL RULE, NOTICE AND HEARING, AS THE FUNDAMENTAL
    REQUIREMENTS OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS, ARE ESSENTIAL ONLY WHEN AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY
    EXERCISES ITS QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTION. IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS EXECUTIVE OR LEGISLATIVE
    FUNCTIONS, SUCH AS ISSUING RULES AND REGULATIONS, AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY NEED NOT COMPLY
    WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF NOTICE AND HEARING

    THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT PILOTAGE AS A PROFESSION HAS TAKEN ON THE NATURE OF A PROPERTY RIGHT.
    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

    You might also like