ALBANO v.

REYES

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.

G.R. No. 83551 / JUL 11, 1989 / PARAS, J./Where does Power to Regulate Public
Utilities Reside/AJLCarde0

NATURE
PETITIONERS
RESPONDENTS

Petition to review decision of DOTC Secretary

Rodolfo Albano
Hon. Rainero Reyes, et al.

SUMMARY. Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) conducted a public bidding for

the development and operation of Manila International Container Terminal
(MICT) at the Port of Manila, and awarded such contract to International
Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI). Congressman Albano claimed that
since the MICT is a public utility, it needs a legislative franchise before it
can legally operate as a public utility. SC said that even if the MICT is
considered a public utility, its operation would not necessarily need a
legislative franchise because the law has granted certain administrative
agencies the power to grant licenses for or to authorize the operation of
public utilities. In this case, EO 30 and PD 857 empowers the PPA to
provide services within Port Districts whether on its own, BY CONTRACT, or
otherwise"
DOCTRINE. The law granted certain administrative agencies the power to
grant licenses for the operation of public utilities.
FACTS.

The PPA board directed the PPA management to prepare for the public
bidding of the development, management and operation of the MICT
(Manila Port).

The DOTC formed a committee for the public bidding.

The Bidding Committee then evaluated several bids and recommended

the award of the contract to ICTSI (Respondent in this case).

ICTSI was then declared as the winning bidder by the DOTC.

The President of the Philippines subsequently approved the same with

directives that PPA shall still have the responsibility for planning,
detailed engineering, construction, expansion, rehabilitation and

Congressman Albano assailed the legality of the awarding and claimed

that since the MICT is a public utility, it needs a legislative franchise
before it can legally operate as a public utility.

ISSUES & RATIO.

1. WON a franchise is needed for the operation of the MICT. - NO

The PPA has been tasked under Executive Order No. 30 (July 16,
1986) 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.

Presidential Decree No. 857 (Revised Charter of the PPA)

expressly empowers the PPA to provide services within Port
Districts whether on its own, by contract (meaning, to
authorize other parties), or otherwise.

Even if the MICT is considered a public utility, its operation would

not necessarily need a legislative franchise because the law has
granted certain administrative agencies the power to grant
licenses for or to authorize the operation of public utilities.
Harmonizing EO 30 and PD 857, the PPA is clearly empowered 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.

The 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.

DECISION.
Petition is DISMISSED.