Albano vs. Reyes
Albano vs.
Reyes
175 SCRA 264 | Paras, J.
Facts:
The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) board directed the PPA management to prepare for the
public bidding of the development, management and operation of the Manila International
Container Terminal (MICT) at the Port of Manila. A Bidding Committee was formed by the DOTC
for the public bidding. After evaluation of several bids, the Bidding Committee recommended the
award of the contract to respondent International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI).
Accordingly, Rainerio Reyes, then DOTC secretary, declared the ICTSI consortium as the winning
bidder.
On May 18, 1988, the President of the Philippines approved the same with directives that PPA
shall still have the responsibility for planning, detailed engineering, construction, expansion,
rehabilitation and capital dredging of the port, as well as the determination of how the revenues of
the port system shall be allocated for future works; and the contractor shall not collect taxes and
duties except that in the case of wharfage or tonnage dues.
Petitioner Albano, as taxpayer and Congressman, assailed the legality of the award and claimed
that since the MICT is a public utility, it needs a legislative franchise before it can legally operate
as a public utility.
ISSUE: Whether a franchise is needed for the operation of the MICT?
Held: No. While the PPA has been tasked under E.O. No. 30 with the management and operation
of the MICT and to undertake the provision 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. P.D. 857 expressly empowers the PPA to provide services within Port Districts
whether on its own, by contract, or otherwise.
Even if the MICT is considered a public utility, its operation would not necessarily need a franchise
from the legislature because the law has granted certain administrative agencies the power to grant
licenses for or to authorize the operation of public utilities. Reading E.O. 30 and P.D. 857 together,
it is clear that the lawmaker has empowered the PPA to undertake by itself the operation and
management of the MICP or to authorize its operation and management by another by contract or
other means, at its option.
Doctrine: The law granted certain administrative agencies the power to grant licenses for the
operation of public utilities. Theory that MICT is a wharf or a dock, as contemplated under
the Public Service Act, would not necessarily call for a franchise from the Legislative Branch.
