Court of Appeals Decision on 247

Republic of the Philippines
COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
SEVENTH DIVISION
* * * * *
FERDINAND V. TENDENILLA,
MARIVIC L. SARAO, MA. IRENE
ARSENIA L. BELLO, and
MACABANTOG D. BATAO,
Petitioners,
-versus-
HON. CESAR V. PURISIMA, n !s
"a#a"$% as Se"re$ar% &' $!e
De#ar$(en$ &' Fnan"e, HON. MAR
A. RO)AS, n !s "a#a"$% as $!e
'&r(er Se"re$ar% &' $!e De#ar$(en$
&' Trans#&r$a$&n and
C&((un"a$&ns, HON. *OSEPH
EMILIO A. ABA+A, n !s "a#a"$% as
$!e n"u(,en$ Se"re$ar% &' $!e
De#ar$(en$ &' Trans#&r$a$&n and
C&((un"a$&ns, H&n. LEILA M. DE
LIMA, n !er "a#a"$% as Se"re$ar% &'
$!e De#ar$(en$ &' *us$"e, GEN.
RICARDO A. DAVID, *R. -RET., n
!s "a#a"$% as $!e C&((ss&ner &'
$!e Bureau &' I((/ra$&n, BOARD
OF AIRLINE COMPANIES,
re#resen$ed ,% FELI) *. CRU0, and
AIRLINE OPERATORS COUNCIL
-AOC., re#resen$ed ,% EDDIE
MONREAL,
Respondents.
CA-G.R. SP N&. 123425
Me(,ers6
TIJAM, N. G., Chairperson
BAR0A, R. F., and
CRUZ, R.A., JJ.:
Pr&(u7/a$ed6
Au/us$ 12, 2518
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 2 -
DECISION
DECISION
TIJAM, *.:
Under various department issuances
1
, Bureau of Immigration
(BI) employees were authorized to render overtime work in our
countrys airports and seaports. !s compensation for their services,
these employees were likewise authorized to collect overtime pay,
traveling, meal, "oard and lodging e#penses from shipping or airline
companies.
2
$he statutory "asis for these administrative issuances is %ec. &!
of 'ommonwealth !ct (o. )*+ or the ,hilippine Immigration !ct of
*-./, which pertinently provides that:
0!%%I1(23($ 45 I22I16!$I4( 32,74833% $4 4936$I23
:46;
%ec. &<!. Immigration employees may "e assigned "y the
'ommissioner of Immigration to do overtime work at rates
fi#ed "y him when the service rendered is to "e paid for "y
shipping companies and airlines or other persons served.=
%ince *->+, the practice has "een that BI employees who render
overtime work send their "illings to the airline companies, through
their employees association.
3
4n ?uly +*, @/*@, an 3conomic 2anagers 'a"inet 'luster
meeting was held for the purpose of addressing complaints of
various airline companies on the practice of paying overtime
compensation for government employees who render customs,
immigration and Auarantine ('IB) services. $he meeting was
attended "y representatives from the Cepartment of Budget and
2anagement (CB2), Cepartment of $ransportation and
1 Immigration Administrative Order, dated January 31, 1953; Memorandum Order, dated January 1,
1985; Memorandum Order No. 143 dated February 1, 199!; Memorandum Order No. "#$%9&%119
dated Mar'( 18, 199&; )e*artment Order No. 3&9 dated November , !+++; ,o--o, **. 3%5&.
! ,o--o, **. 3%55.
3 ,o--o, *. 859.
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 3 -
DECISION
'ommunication (C4$'), Cepartment of !griculture (C!),
Cepartment of $ourism (C4$), Cepartment of ?ustice (C4?), Bureau
of 'ustoms (B4'), 2anila International !irport !uthority (2I!!),
and the ,hilippine 3conomic Done !uthority (,3D!).
4n the same day, %ec. 'esar ,urisima sent a Memorandum
4
to
,resident Benigno %. !Auino III, informing him of the meeting. $he
Memorandum e#plained that, it was agreed that a shifting work
schedule shall "e adopted to ensure a continuous @.<hour service.
$he pertinent portions of the Memorandum provide that:
0$he meeting was convened to discuss the issue of rendition
of overtime work at airports and other facilities for the provision of
customs, immigrations and Auarantine services ('IB) and the
payment thereof "y private entities, particularly the airline
companies at the airports.
0Curing the said meeting, it was recognized that payment "y
private entities of overtime pay rendered ,% /&vern(en$
#ers&nne7 s a de$erren$ $& $!e $&urs( ndus$r% and s /enera77%
re/arded as an rre/u7ar a"$v$%. Issues concerning the issuance of
mere acknowledgment receipts instead of official receipts were
raised, as well as allegations of work slowdown occasionally
e#perienced in this airports.
0!s an immediate response, it was agreed upon that
&#era$&ns '&r $!e rend$&n &' CI9 serv"es shall follow a s!'$n/
s"!edu7e $& ensure an undsru#$ed 2: !&ur serv"e. Fur$!er,
e''e"$ve ((eda$e7%, &ver$(e ;&r< rendered ,% an%
/&vern(en$ #ers&nne7 s!a77 ,e #ad ,% $!e "&n"erned a/en"%,
a##7%n/ /&vern(en$ ra$es.
$he following are the action points esta"lished:
1. $he C45, C! and C4E shall issue directives to the Bureau
of 'ustoms (B4'), Bureau of Immigration (BI), Buarantine
%ervices of Bureau of ,lant Industry and Bureau of !nimal
Industry and Bureau of Buarantine and International Eealth
%urveillance (B4BIE%), respectively. Instructing said
agencies $& ds"&n$nue "!ar/n/ &ver$(e #a% against
private entities at airports, seaports and all other facilities
4 ,o--o, **. 5&%58.
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 4 -
DECISION
(i.e. ,3D! zones), effective * !ugust @/*@.
2. $he DOTC, $!r&u/! $!e Cv7 Ava$&n Au$!&r$% B&ard,
s!a77 ssue an advs&r% $& a77 ar7ne "&(#anes, n'&r(n/
$!e( &' $!e #&7"% $& ds"&n$nue "!ar/n/ #rva$e en$$es
'&r &ver$(e #a%, and 7<e;se dre"$n/ $!e( $& s$&#
#a%n/ an% and a77 OT #a% rendered ,% /&vern(en$
#ers&nne7, e''e"$ve 1 Au/us$ 2512.
3. $he CB2 shall prepare the appropriate rules governing
payment of overtime pay for personnel rendering 'IB, to "e
paid "y the national government at government rates,
su"Fect to the rules of the 'ivil %ervice.
4. $he relevant agencies shall reAuest from the CB2 the
creation of additional plantilla positions to address any
shortage in any manpower resulting from the
implementation of the shifting schedule, with the main
international airports as the priority areas for the
implementation of shifting schedule.
0=&r$!% $& n&$e s $!e 'a"$ $!a$ 7e/a7 ,ases &' $!e BI and
BOC '&r "!ar/n/ &ver$(e #a% a/ans$ #rva$e en$$es are (ere7%
#er(ssve, and n&$ (anda$&r%. 'ommonwealth !ct (o. )*+ for
the BI and 6! (o. *-+& for the B4' contain similar wordings and
allow the 'ommissioners to assign their respective employees to
render overtime work, paya"le "y the persons served "y such
government employees. T!ere s, !&;ever, n& #r&!,$&n '&r $!e
na$&na7 /&vern(en$ $& s!&u7der $!e #a%(en$ &' su"! &ver$(e
;&r<, es#e"a77% sn"e $!e sa(e s n&$ '&r $!e #ur#&se &' servn/
an% s#e"'" #ers&n &r en$$% ,u$ $& "&(#7e(en$ $!e &#era$&ns &'
$!e a/en"% ;!en ne"essar%.
###
$he agencies under the C! in the conduct of Auarantine
services, on the other hand, finds its legal "asis in 3#ecutive 4rder
(o. @-@, where"y it provides that services performed outside office
hours s!a77 ,e "!ar/ea,7e a/ans$ $!e #ar$es served. :ith the
implementation of the shifting schedule for 'IB services, however,
the provision will no longer "e applica"le as the services rendered
will always "e performed within office hours.
Curing the +* ?uly @/*@ meeting, su//es$&ns ;ere (ade &n
$!e (eans $& address (an#&;er and >ueun/ #r&,7e(s. $hese
include outsourcing the services performed in the airports to ensure
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 5 -
DECISION
efficiency and Auality of services, centralization of the procurement
of ''$9 cameras in the airports to ena"le proper monitoring of the
'IB services, and the propriety of using a random inspection of the
passengers and airports instead of su"Fecting everyone to
inspection, which was o"served to "e effective in other countries.?
(3mphasis supplied)
,ursuant to said Memorandum, C4$' %ecretary 2ar 6o#as
issued a Letter, dated !ugust +, @/*@, addressed to the ,rivate
6espondent Board of !irline 6epresentatives (B!6), directing them
to stop payment of overtime compensation to employees of the
(ational 1overnment rendering customs, immigration and
Auarantine services.
5
$he Letter pertinently states that:
xxx
,ursuant to the ,residential directive, $!e "&n"erned
Ca,ne$ se"re$ares a/reed $& ad&#$ a #&7"% ;!eren a 2:@A
s!'$n/ s"!edu7e ;77 ,e (#7e(en$ed and $!e /&vern(en$ ;77
'u77% 'nan"e $!e serv"es rendered ,% $!e /&vern(en$ e(#7&%ees
n n$erna$&na7 ar#&r$s. Eence, government agencies performing
services in international airports have "een directed to field
sufficient num"er of personnel in shifts to address their operational
reAuirements to avoid rendering overtime.
In view thereof,we are informing you of this policy of the
government and reAuest your assistance in relaying this
information to airline companies and to advse $!e( $& s$&#
#a%n/ &ver$(e #a% $& sad /&vern(en$ e(#7&%ees, ;!e$!er n
"ase, n <nd, &r ;!a$ever '&r(. :e also reAuest that you report to
us any violation of this policy, including any work stoppage, work
slow<down, or any form of action that affects the efficiency of their
services, to ena"le the agencies concerned to implement corrective
action.= (3mphasis supplied)
!s a result, ,rivate 6espondent B!6 refused to pay the "illings
sent "y BI employees after the effectivity of the su"Fect issuances.
6
!ggrieved "y the Memorandum and the Letter (0su"Fect
issuances=), ,etitioners, representing various employees
5 ,o--o, **. 59%&+.
& ,o--o, **. 5!!%5!4.
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 6 -
DECISION
organizations in the BI,
7
filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and
Injunction with Urgent Prayer for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining
Order andor !tatus "uo #nte Order and $rit of Pre%iminary Injunction
8

against ,u"lic 6espondents and ,rivate 6espondent Board of !irline
'ompanies (B!6) and !irline 4perators 'ouncil (!4') praying that
:e:
*.Issue a writ of preliminary inFunction against respondents to prevent
them from enforcing the 2emorandum dated ?uly +*, @/*@ issued "y
Eon. 'esar ,urisima and the 7etter of Instruction, dated !ugust +,
@/*@, issued "y Eon. 2ar 6o#as, as well as any documents, directives
or guidelines issued in pursuance thereto.
@.Ceclare unconstitutional and illegal the 2emorandum and 74I as
well as any documents, directives or guidelines issued in pursuance
thereto.
+.Cirect payment of services and overtime pay duly rendered "y
,etitioners, including meal and transportation allowances.
In 4ur Reso%ution, dated (ovem"er @G, @/*@, :e reAuired the
6espondents to file their 'omments on the ,etition, as well as on the
prayer for the issuance of inFunctive relief.
9
! Eearing on the prayer
for inFunctive relief was likewise set on Cecem"er */, @/*@.
10
!fter the hearing on ,etitionersH prayer for inFunctive relief, :e
referred the case for mediation "ut to no avail.
11
Eence, :e reAuired
the parties to su"mit their respective memoranda.
12
,etitioners argue that the su"Fect issuances are unconstitutional
"ecause they are contrary to %ection *, !rticle 9I
13
of the *-G&
,hilippine 'onstitution. $hey claim that the power to e#empt an
agency from an o"ligation mandated "y law is a matter within the
legislatives discretion, and that the ,u"lic 6espondents, in removing
Ferdinand .endeni--a re*resents t(e #mmigration O//i'ers Asso'iation o/ t(e 0(i-i**ines, #n'.
1#OA02; Marivi' 3arao /or t(e 4u5-od ng mga 6a7ani ng 8#) 1496"O)2; Ma. #rene Arsenia 4e--o
/or #nte--igen'e )ivision o/ NA#A *ersonne-; ,o--o, **. 33%3&.
8 ,o--o, *. 3.
9 ,o--o, **. 9!%95.
10 #bid.
11 ,o--o, *. &85.
12 ,o--o, **. 1&9%11.
13 3e'tion 1. .(e -egis-ative *o7er s(a-- be vested in t(e 8ongress o/ t(e 0(i-i**ines 7(i'( s(a--
'onsist o/ a 3enate and a :ouse o/ ,e*resentatives, e;'e*t to t(e e;tent reserved to t(e *eo*-e by
t(e *rovision on initiative and re/erendum
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 7 -
DECISION
the o"ligation imposed upon private airline companies and
transferring it to the government, repealed %ec. &! of the ,hilippine
Immigration !ct. 'iting the case of Carboni%%a &s' (oard of #ir%ine
Representati&es )*'R' +o' ,-./01, !eptember ,0, /2,,3, ,etitioners argue
that it is 'ongress who can determine who will shoulder payment of
overtime compensation for services rendered "y customs and
immigration employees.
2eanwhile, ,u"lic and ,rivate 6espondents raise procedural
and su"stantive arguments against the ,etition. 5irst, they Auestion
the propriety of a ,etition for 'ertiorari andIor ,rohi"ition to
Auestion the su"Fect issuances, which were issued in the e#ercise of
,u"lic 6espondents Auasi<legislative power. $hey also argue that the
,etition should "e dismissed for failure to o"serve the hierarchy of
courts and for failure to seek a reconsideration of the su"Fect
issuances. 5inally, they contend that the constitutionality of the
su"Fect issuances is not the %is mota of the case.
!s to the constitutionality of the su"Fect issuances, ,u"lic and
,rivate 6espondents "oth argue that the provisions of %ec. &! of the
,hilippine Immigration !ct show that "oth the rendering of overtime
work and the payment of overtime compensation "y airline
companies is #er(ssve. $hey "oth contend that, under the cited
provision, heads of administrative agencies are given the ds"re$&n
to allow or assign its employees to do overtime work and to
determine whether airline companies are lia"le therefor. $hus, they
pray that the ,etition "e dismissed.
Cistilled of all its comple#ities, as well as non<essentials, the
resolution of this case is actually anchored upon a determination of
one main issue: In ma4ing the subject issuances, did the 56ecuti&e
department usurp the powers of the Congress7
Before :e delve into the merits, :e shall first dispose of the
procedural road"locks raised in the ,etition.
The Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition
Are Proper Remedies to Test the
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 8 -
DECISION
Constitutionality of tatutes
$he %upreme 'ourt in the case of *a%icto &s' (enigno !imeon
#8uino III,
14
citing the case of Liga ng mga (arangay +ationa% &s' City
Mayor of Mani%a,
15
e#pounded on the reason why a petition for
certiorari is not a proper remedy in assailing the constitutionality of
an e#ecutive order, thus:
Under the 6ules of 'ourt, petitions for 'ertiorari and
,rohi"ition are availed of to Auestion Fudicial, Auasi<Fudicial and
mandatory acts. %ince the issuance of an 34 is not Fudicial, Auasi<
Fudicial or a mandatory act, a petition for certiorari and prohi"ition
is an incorrect remedyJ instead a petition for declaratory relief
under 6ule )+ of the 6ules of 'ourt, filed with the 6egional $rial
'ourt (6$'), is the proper recourse to assail the validity of 34 &:
###.
7ikewise, in !outhern 9emisphere 5ngagement +etwor4, Inc' &'
#nti:Terrorism Counci%, we similarly dismissed the petitions for
certiorari and prohi"ition challenging the constitutionality of 6.!.
(o. -+&@, otherwise known as the KEuman %ecurity !ct of @//&,K
since the respondents therein (mem"ers of the !nti<$errorism
'ouncil) did not e#ercise Fudicial or Auasi<Fudicial functions.
Eowever, in the case of 9on' 5duardo 5rmita &s' 9on' #%decoa:
;e%orino, et'a%.,
16
the %upreme 'ourt also ruled that petitions for
certiorari and prohi"ition are appropriate remedies to assail the
constitutionality of acts of the e#ecutive and legislative officials. $he
Eonora"le 'ourt held that:
Be that as it may, it is settled that what determines the
nature of the action and which court has Furisdiction over it are the
allegations in the complaint and the character of the relief sought. !
perusal of the petition of !,2, "efore the trial court readily shows
that it is not a mere petition for prohi"ition with application for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary inFunction. 5or it is also one for
certiorari as it specifically alleges that 3.4. .G) is invalid for "eing
unconstitutional, it having "een issued in contravention of %ec. . of
14 <.,. No. 19398, February !8, !+1!.
15 <.,. No. 154599, January !1, !++4.
1& <.,. No. 113+, June , !+11.
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 9 -
DECISION
6.!. )).& and %ec. ./@ (e) of the $ariff and 'ustoms 'ode, hence, its
enforcement should "e enFoined and petitioner prohi"ited from
implementing the same.
Pe$$&ns '&r "er$&rar and #r&!,$&n are a##r&#ra$e
re(edes $& rase "&ns$$u$&na7 ssues and $& reve; and@&r
#r&!,$ &r nu77'%, ;!en #r&#er, a"$s &' 7e/s7a$ve and eBe"u$ve
&''"a7s. $hus, even if the petition was denominated as one for
prohi"ition, pu"lic respondent did not err in treating it also as one
for certiorari and taking cognizance of the controversy.
'learly, the Eonora"le %upreme 'ourt recognizes petitions for
certiorari and prohi"ition as appropriate remedies to contest the
constitutionality of the su"Fect e#ecutive issuances. $here is no
indication that the 1alicto case has e#pressly repealed or overruled
the 3rmita case.
The !ase is an e"!eption to the
Rule on #"haustion of
Administrati$e Remedies
$he doctrine of e#haustion of administrative remedies
mandates that whenever there is an availa"le administrative remedy
provided "y law, no Fudicial recourse can "e made until all such
remedies have "een availed of and e#hausted. $his rule is "ased on
the practical principle that the administrative agency should "e given
a chance to correct its error, and that relief first sought from a
superior administrative agency could render court action
unnecessary.
17
It has "een held, however, that the doctrine of e#haustion of
administrative remedies and the doctrine of primary Furisdiction are
not ironclad rules. In the case of Repub%ic of the Phi%ippines &' Lacap,
18

the %upreme 'ourt enumerated the e#ceptions to these rules, namely:
(a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the
doctrineJ (b) where the challenged administrative act is patently
illegal, amounting to lack of FurisdictionJ (c3 where there is
17 O*orto vs. Members o/ t(e 4oard o/ #n=uiry and )is'i*-ine o/ t(e Nationa- 0o7er 8or*oration,
<.,. No. 144!3, O'tober 15, !++8.
18 ,e*ub-i' vs. "a'a*, <.,. No. 158!53, Mar'( !, !++.
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 10 -
DECISION
unreasona"le delay or official inaction that will irretrieva"ly
preFudice the complainantJ (d) where the amount involved is
relatively so small as to make the rule impractical and oppressiveJ (e)
;!ere $!e >ues$&n nv&7ved s #ure7% 7e/a7 and ;77 u7$(a$e7%
!ave $& ,e de"ded ,% $!e "&ur$s &' Cus$"eJ (f) where Fudicial
intervention is urgentJ (g) where the application of the doctrine may
cause great and irrepara"le damageJ (h) where the controverted acts
violate due processJ (i) where the issue of non<e#haustion of
administrative remedies has "een rendered mootJ (j3 where there is
no other plain, speedy and adeAuate remedyJ (4) where strong pu"lic
interest is involvedJ and (%) in Auo warranto proceedings.
19
%ince the controversy revolves around the constitutionality of
the su"Fect issuances, :e find that the petition Aualifies as an
e#ception to the general rule reAuiring the e#haustion of
administrative remedies.
The non%filin& of a motion
for re!onsideration is 'ustifiable
4rdinarily, certiorari as a special civil action will not lie unless a
motion for reconsideration is first filed "efore the respondent
tri"unal, to allow it an opportunity to correct its assigned errors.
$his rule, however, is not without e#ceptions, as follows:
$he rule is, however, circumscri"ed "y well<defined e#ceptions,
such as (a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a Auo
had no FurisdictionJ (") where the Auestions raised in the certiorari
proceeding have "een duly raised and passed upon "y the lower court,
or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower courtJ (c)
where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the Auestion and
any further delay would preFudice the interests of the 1overnment or of
the petitioner or the su"Fect matter of the action is perisha"leJ (d) where,
under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would "e uselessJ
(e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is e#treme
urgency for reliefJ (f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of
arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief "y the trial court is
impro"a"leJ (g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity
19 <o et.a-. vs. )istin'tion 0ro*erties )eve-o*ment and 8onstru'tion #n'., <.,. No. 194+!4, A*ri- !5,
!+1!. 1em*(asis su**-ied2.
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 11 -
DECISION
for lack of due processJ (h) where the proceedings were e# parte, or in
which the petitioner had no opportunity to o"FectJ and (i) ;!ere $!e
ssue rased s &ne #ure7% &' 7a; &r ;!ere #u,7" n$eres$ s nv&7ved.
20

(emphasis supplied)
:hat is "eing assailed in this case is the constitutionality of the
su"Fect 2emorandum and 7etter issued "y %ecretaries ,urisima and
6o#as. Under the cited e#ception (i), the filing of a motion for
reconsideration may "e dispensed with and the petition is not
dismissi"le for "eing premature.
The Petition satisfies the re(uirements
of 'udi!ial re$ie)
Justi!iability
%ection *, !rticle 9III, of the *-G& 'onstitution e#pands the
concept of Fudicial review "y providing that:
%3'. *. $he Fudicial power shall "e vested in one
%upreme 'ourt and in such lower courts as may "e esta"lished "y
law.
?udicial power includes the duty of the courts of Fustice to
settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demanda"le and enforcea"le, and $& de$er(ne ;!e$!er &r n&$
$!ere !as ,een /rave a,use &' ds"re$&n a(&un$n/ $& 7a"< &r
eB"ess &' Cursd"$&n &n $!e #ar$ &' an% ,ran"! &r ns$ru(en$a7$%
&' $!e G&vern(en$.
$he powers of government are generally divided into three
"ranches: the 7egislative, the 3#ecutive and the ?udiciary. 3ach
"ranch is supreme within its own sphere "eing independent from one
another and it is this supremacy which ena"les the courts to
determine whether a law is constitutional or unconstitutional. $he
?udiciary is the final ar"iter on the Auestion of whether or not a
"ranch of government or any of its officials has acted without
Furisdiction or in e#cess of Furisdiction or so capriciously as to
!+ :on. >rmita vs. :on. A-de'oa%)e-orino, et.a-., <.,. No. 113+, June , !+11.
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 12 -
DECISION
constitute an a"use of discretion amounting to e#cess of Furisdiction.
$his is not only a Fudicial power "ut a duty to pass Fudgment on
matters of this nature.
21

7ike almost all powers conferred "y the 'onstitution, the power
of Fudicial review is su"Fect to limitations, to wit: (*) there must "e an
actual case or controversy calling for the e#ercise of Fudicial powerJ
(@) the person challenging the act must have the standing to Auestion
the validity of the su"Fect act or issuanceJ otherwise stated, he must
have a personal and su"stantial interest in the case such that he has
sustained, or will sustain, direct inFury as a result of its enforcementJ
(+) the Auestion of constitutionality must "e raised at the earliest
opportunityJ and (.) the issue of constitutionality must "e the very lis
mota of the case.
22
,u"lic 6espondents suggest that the ,etition dwells on the
soundness or wisdom of paying overtime services rendered "y the
Bureaus employees. ,ut differently, they are arguing that the issues
raised in this ,etition are political Auestions and are thus "eyond the
am"it of Fudicial review.
$e beg to disagree'
,olitical Auestions are Kthose Auestions which, under the
'onstitution, are to "e decided "y the people in their sovereign
capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has "een
delegated to the 7egislature or e#ecutive "ranch of the 1overnment.K
It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality,
of a particular measure. Its "asis "eing the principle of separation of
powers, courts are "ound to e#ercise with caution its power of
review when political Auestions are alleged to "e involved.
Eence, courts must determine in every case, whether it involves
a pure Auestion of policy "eyond its power to review. In <rancisco &s'
!1"a7yers Against Mono*o-y and 0overty vs. 3e'retary o/ 4udget and Management, <.,. No. 1&498,
A*ri- !4, !+1!.
22 "a7yers Against Mono*o-y and 0overty vs. 3e'retary o/ 4udget and Management, <.,. No. 1&498,
A*ri- !4, !+1! .
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 13 -
DECISION
9ouse of Representati&es
23
, the %upreme 'ourt e#plained that the
determination of a truly political Auestion from a Fusticia"le political
Auestion lies in the answer to the Auestion of whether there are
"&ns$$u$&na77% (#&sed 7($s &n #&;ers &r 'un"$&ns "&n'erred
u#&n #&7$"a7 ,&des. If there are, then our courts are duty<"ound to
e#amine whether the "ranch or instrumentality of the government
properly acted within such limits.
In this case, :e find that the petition does not concern itself
with the wisdom of the said e#ecutive issuances. $he ,etition poses a
Auestion on whether the su"Fect issuances constitute as an
unconstitutional e#ercise "y the e#ecutive of a legislative power.
'learly, the determination of the proper allocation of powers of the
different "ranches of government is one within the am"it of Fudicial
review.
tandin&
,etitioners have locus standing to file the case "ecause they
have "een preFudiced "y the implementation of the su"Fect e#ecutive
issuances since the airline companies had stopped paying their
overtime pay and allowances despite the fact that they are still
reAuired to do overtime work. !nent %ocus standi, Kthe rule is that the
person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal
and su"stantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will
sustain, direct inFury as a result of its enforcement,
24
as o"taining in
this case. ,etitioners have demonstrated that they are parties in
interest "ecause they are employees of the Bureau of Immigration
who will "e adversely affected "y the effects of the su"Fect issuances.
Ripeness or Maturity of
A!tion
:e also find that the controversy is already ripe for Fudicial
!3 <.,. No. 1&+!&1, November 1+, !++3.
24 "a7yers Against Mono*o-y and 0overty vs. 3e'retary o/ 4udget and Management, <.,. No. 1&498,
A*ri- !4, !+1!.
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 14 -
DECISION
intervention. In our Furisdiction, the issue of ripeness is generally
treated in terms of actual inFury to the plaintiff. Eence, a Auestion is
ripe for adFudication when the act "eing challenged has had a direct
adverse effect on the individual challenging it.
25
,rivate 6espondent
B!6, in their letter dated (ovem"er *>, @/*@
26
, effectively refused
payment of the "illing statements
27
sent "y ,etitioners for the months
of !ugust and %eptem"er @/*@. ,rivate 6espondent referred to the
7etter issued to them "y %ec. 6o#as as "asis for their denial of the
claim of the BI employees. %ince the BI employees were put in lim"o
as to whether they can still collect payment for overtime work after
the effectivity of the su"Fect issuances, :e deem the issues raised in
this ,etition ripe for Fudicial determination.
$e now confront the paramount issue=;id the 56ecuti&e
;epartment, in ma4ing the issuances, encroach on the %aw ma4ing powers
of the Legis%ati&e ;epartment7
$he "oundary "etween the duties of "oth legislative and
e#ecutive "ranches of the government is not difficult to comprehend.
Le/s7a$ve #&;er is Kthe authority, under the 'onstitution, to make
laws, and to alter and repeal them.
28
It em"races all su"Fects and
e#tends to matters of general concern or common interest.
4n the other hand, 3#ecutive power Kis generally defined as
the power to enforce and administer the laws. $he e#ecutive
function, therefore, concerns the implementation of the policies as set
forth "y law.
29
$he e#ecutive power is vested in the ,resident.
30
It is
the power of carrying the laws into practical operation and enforcing
their due o"servance.
31
!s chief e#ecutive, the ,resident also
e#ercises a power of control and supervision over all agencies in the
e#ecutive department. $his means that he has the authority to
assume directly the functions of the e#ecutive department, "ureau
25 "a7yers Against Mono*o-y and 0overty vs. 3e'retary o/ 4udget and Management, <.,. No. 1&498,
A*ri- !4, !+1!.
26 3u*ra note &.
27 ,o--o, **. 3%5!1.
!8 O*-e vs. .orres, <.,. No. 1!&85. Ju-y !3, 1998
!9 "aure- vs. )esierto, <.,. No. 1453&8. A*ri- 1!, !++!.
3+ MM)A vs. 8on'erned ,esidents O/ Mani-a 4ay, <.,. Nos. 1194%48. February 15, !+11.
31 3u*ra, note !&.
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 15 -
DECISION
and office, or interfere with the discretion of its officials.
32
'orollary
to the power of control, the ,resident also has the duty of
supervising the enforcement of laws for the maintenance of general
peace and pu"lic order.
33
In this case, ,etitioners vehemently o"Fect to the
implementation of the su"Fect issuances claiming that they amount to
a repeal of %ec. &! of the ,hilippine Immigration !ct. 6espondents,
on the other hand, highlights the ,residential power of control over
the agencies in the e#ecutive department as "asis for the su"Fect
issuances.
1iven the two contrasting arguments, it is necessary therefore
to analyze %ec. &! of the ,hilippine Immigration !ct and determine
whether it was intended as a limit to the 'hief 3#ecutives power of
control. %tated differently, :e must make an e#amination on
whether the su"Fect issuances effectively repealed %ec. &! of the said
law.
e!. *A of the Philippine Immi&ration
A!t is !lear that the liability of airline
!ompanies depends on the renderin& of
o$ertime )or+
'ommonwealth !ct (o. )*+ or the ,hilippine Immigration !ct
of *-./, as amended "y 6epu"lic !ct (o. >/+
34
, states that:
%ec. &<!. Immigration employees may "e assigned "y the
'ommissioner of Immigration to do overtime work at rates fi#ed
"y him ;!en $!e serv"e rendered s $& ,e #ad '&r ,% s!##n/
"&(#anes and ar7nes or other persons served. (3mphasis
supplied)
,etitioners argue that 0their right to collect their overtime pay,
including transportation and meal allowances, from airlines
3! Ana5 Mindanao 0arty%"ist <rou* vs. >rmita, <.,. No. 1&&+5!. August !9, !++
33 #bid.
34 Republic Act No. 503 An Act To Amend Certain Section Of Commonwealth Act Numbered Six Hundred
And Thirteen Otherwi!e "nown A! The #hilippine $mmi%ration Act Of &'(0.
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 16 -
DECISION
operating within the ,hilippines, has the imprimatur of 'ongress
and such right cannot "e taken away "y a mere memorandum andIor
a letter of instruction=.
35
In other words, ,etitioners argue that under
%ec. &! of the ,hilippine Immigration !ct, payment "y airline
companies of their overtime pay is mandatory. $hey likewise
implicitly suggest that they have an inaliena"le right to overtime
work and an inherent entitlement to overtime pay demanda"le solely
from the airline companies.
4n the other hand, "oth ,u"lic and ,rivate 6espondents
interpret %ec. &! of the ,hilippine Immigration !ct to mean that the
'ommissioner of Immigration has the discretion, "oth in assigning
immigration employees to perform overtime work and in
determining whether shipping or airline companies should pay
overtime compensation.
36
,u"lic 6espondents further argue that %ec. &!of the ,hilippine
Immigration !ct, must "e interpreted together with a similar law
relating to payment of overtime compensation to officials and
employees of the (ational 1overnment, %ec. )+, 'hapter &, Book 9I
of the !dministrative 'ode, which states that:
Se"$&n 38. #dditiona% Compensation for O&ertime !er&ice' < O''"a7s
and e(#7&%ees &' $!e Na$&na7 G&vern(en$, ;!en re>ured $&
;&r< &ver$(e after regular working hours during ordinary days,
during half<day sessions, or on %aturdays, %undays and holidays,
"y the heads of departments concerned, to finish work that must "e
completed within a specified time, (a% ,e #ad &ver$(e
"&(#ensa$&n 'r&( an% uneB#e"$ed ,a7an"e &' $!e a##r&#ra$&n
'&r sa7ares and ;a/es au$!&rDed n $!e Genera7 A##r&#ra$&ns
A"$ and under su"! /ude7nes as (a% ,e ssued ,% $!e Presden$.
(3mphasis supplied)
,u"lic 6espondents postulate that, the 1overnment may
assume payment of overtime compensation in the event that BI
employees are assigned to work overtime and that the 1overnment
can derive the funds for payment of overtime compensation from the
35 ,o--o, *. 98+.
36 ,o--o, *. 858.
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 17 -
DECISION
une#pended "alance in appropriations for salaries and wages in the
1eneral !ppropriations !ct.
37
$hey further argue that the term 0other persons served= in %ec.
&! of the ,hilippine Immigration !ct is "road enough to cover even
the 1overnment or any of its agencies.
38
,n this note, We (ualifiedly a&ree )ith Petitioners that )hen
assi&ned to render o$ertime )or+ in areas )here airline !ompanies
operate, -I employees must be paid by airline !ompanies. This is
!onsistent )ith the pra!ti!e obser$ed by the National Go$ernment,
the -I, the Petitioners and the -AR under the Philippine
Immi&ration A!t.
5irst, the provisions are clear. If the 'ommissioner assigns BI
employees to work, he must fi# the rates for overtime pay which will
"e paid "y airline companies, shipping companies and other persons
served.
%econd, an e#amination of prevailing laws reveal that 'ongress
intended that only a certain class or group of persons "e lia"le for
payment of overtime compensation to employees of the government
rendering overtime work. $he provisions of the $'', and the
!dministrative 'ode of *-G&, respectively state that:
%3'. +>/). #ssignment of Customs 5mp%oyees to O&ertime $or4'
< 'ustoms employees may "e assigned "y a 'ollector to do
overtime work at rates fi#ed "y the 'ommissioner of 'ustoms when
the service rendered s $& ,e #ad '&r ,% (#&r$ers, s!##ers &r
&$!er #ers&ns served. $he rates to "e fi#ed shall not "e less than
that prescri"ed "y law to "e paid to employees of private enterprise.
%ection +-. O&ertime !er&ices' < $he services of ,lant Buarantine
4fficers, fumigators and helpers performed outside office hours
and reim"ursement of meal, transportation, lodging and other
incidental e#penses s!a77 ,e "!ar/ea,7e $& $!e #ar$% &r #ar$es
served at the rates to "e prescri"ed "y the %ecretary of !griculture
37 ,o--o, *. 914.
38 #bid.
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 18 -
DECISION
upon recommendation of the 6egional Cirector concerned.
(otwithstanding such provisions, :e find that the ,resident,
through his ca"inet, dd n&$ en"r&a"! u#&n $!e #&;ers
"&ns$$u$&na77% ves$ed $& $!e Le/s7a$ure when it rendered the
su"Fect e#ecutive issuances. $his is "ecause %ec. &! of the ,hilippine
Immigration !ct was not transgressed when the e#ecutive eliminated
the system of rendering overtime work, a power which the ,resident
can validly e#ercise. $he ,resident did not take away the lia"ility of
airline companies to pay overtime compensation "ut merely decided
to implement a no overtime policy. !fter all, the 3#ecutive still has
this residual power to decide whether overtime work ought to "e
rendered or not. $he 3#ecutive retains the power of control and
supervision over ,etitioners, who are its employees.
e!tion *A of the Philippine
Immi&ration A!t does not deny the
#"e!uti$e department the po)er to fi"
or ad'ust the )or+in& hours of the
bureau.s employees
$he clear wordings of %ec. &! do not vest upon ,etitioners an
inaliena"le su"stantive right to demand overtime work. Indeed, the
law provides that immigration employees 0may= only "e assigned "y
the 'ommissioner of Immigration to do overtime work. It is a settled
doctrine in statutory construction that the word KmayK denotes
discretion, and cannot "e construed as having a mandatory effect.
39
In
other words, the BI 'ommissioner is not o"ligated to assign or
reAuire the employees of the "ureau to render overtime work.
Interestingly, ,etitioners, during the hearing on Cecem"er */, @/*@,
admitted that the rendering of overtime work depends on the
'ommissionerHs discretion.
40
,roceeding from the discretion granted to the 'ommissioner of
Immigration, it "ecomes indisputa"le that $!e #a%(en$ &' &ver$(e
serv"es de#ends &n $!e eBer"se &' $!e C&((ss&ner, &' !s
ds"re$&n E$& re>ure? &r Eass/n? ((/ra$&n e(#7&%ees $&
39 .o-entino vs. 8ourt o/ A**ea-s, <.,. No. 1!859, August 1, !++!.
40 ,o--o, *. !9!.
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 19 -
DECISION
render &ver$(e ;&r<. In other words, the 'ommissionerHs order or
authority to render overtime services is a condition sine 8ua non for
payment of overtime compensation. In our la"or laws, this
corresponds to the principle of 0no work, no pay=.
'orollarily, it is the BI 'ommissioner who first determines
whether overtime services would "e necessary. 4nly after such
authority is given, would the Auestion of payment of overtime
compensation arise.
7ogically, :e do not su"scri"e to ,etitioners assertion that the
3#ecutive issuances repealed %ec. &! of the ,hilippine Immigration
!ct for the simple reason that even the said law impliedly recognizes
the primary discretion of the 3#ecutive department to adFust or fi#
the working hours of its employees.
The -I Commissioner has the authority
to ad'ust the )or+in& s!hedule of the
-ureau/s employees
$he law and Furisprudence support the incontesta"le fact that
"ureau heads can adFust the working schedule of the agencyHs
employees .
! reading of the following provisions of the ,hilippine
Immigration !ct highlights the 'ommissionerHs power to manage the
operations of the Bureau of Immigration.
'422I%%I4(36 45 I22I16!$I4(
%ec. +. #ppointment> term of office> compensation' < $he 'ommissioner
of Immigration shall "e appointed "y the ,resident, with the
consent of the 'ommission on !ppointments of the (ational
!ssem"ly, and shall hold office at the pleasure of the ,resident. Ee
shall receive compensation at the rate of ten thousand pesos per
annum.
#dministrati&e head powers as such' < Ee shall "e the
administrative head of the Bureau of Immigration and s!a77
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 20 -
DECISION
#&ssess $!e #&;ers /enera77% "&n'erred u#&n ,ureau "!e's. Ee
shall have charge of the administration of all laws relating to the
immigration of aliens into the ,hilippines and s!a77 !ave $!e
((eda$e "&n$r&7, dre"$&n and su#ervs&n &' a77 &''"ers,
"7er<s, and e(#7&%ees &' $!e Bureau &' I((/ra$&n. Ee shall
issue, su"Fect to the approval of the Cepartment Eead, such rules
and regulations and prescri"e such forms of "ond, reports, and
other papers, and s!a77 ssue 'r&( $(e $& $(e su"! ns$ru"$&ns
n&$ n"&nss$en$ ;$! 7a;, as !e s!a77 dee( ,es$ "a7"u7a$ed $&
"arr% &u$ $!e #r&vs&ns &' $!e ((/ra$&n 7a;s. Ee shall su"mit
a report to the ,resident, in writing, of the transactions of his office,
annually or oftener as the ,resident may reAuire. (3mphasis
supplied)
$he 0powers genera%%y conferred upon bureau chiefs=, provided
under the ,hilippine Immigration !ct, is further e#plained in the
provisions of 3#ecutive 4rder (34) (o. @-@, or the #dministrati&e
Code of ,-?1, to wit:
%ection @-. Powers and ;uties in *enera%. < $he head of "ureau or
office shall "e its chief e#ecutive officer. Ee shall e#ercise overall
authority in matters within the Furisdiction of the "ureau, office or
agency, n"7udn/ $!&se re7a$n/ $& $s &#era$&ns, and enforce all
laws and regulations pertaining to it.
###
%ection +). #uthority to Prescribe <orms and Issue Regu%ations' @
(*) $he head of a "ureau or office shall prescri"e forms and ssue
"r"u7ars &r &rders $& se"ure $!e !ar(&n&us and e''"en$
ad(ns$ra$&n &' !s ,ureau &r &''"e and $& "arr% n$& 'u77 e''e"$
$!e 7a;s re7a$n/ $& (a$$ers ;$!n !s Cursd"$&n. ,enalties shall
not "e prescri"ed in any circular or order for its violation, e#cept as
e#pressly allowed "y lawJ
(@) Eeads of "ureaus or offices are authorized to issue orders
regarding the ad(ns$ra$&n &' $!er n$erna7 a''ars '&r $!e
/udan"e &' &r "&(#7an"e ,% $!er &''"ers and e(#7&%eesJ
(3mphasis supplied)
$his is further evident in 6ule L9II of the 4mni"us
Implementing Book 9 of 34 @-@, which states:
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 21 -
DECISION
6U73 L9II
1overnment 4ffice Eours
%3'$I4( *. I$ s!a77 ,e $!e du$% &' ea"! !ead &' $!e de#ar$(en$
&r a/en"% $& re>ure a77 &''"ers and e(#7&%ees under !( $&
s$r"$7% &,serve $!e #res"r,ed &''"e !&urs.
%3'$I4( @. 3ach head of department or agency shall reAuire a
daily record of attendance of all the officers and employees under
him including those serving in the field or on the water, to "e kept
on the proper form and, whenever possi"le, registered on the
"undy clock.
%ervice Kin the fieldK shall refer to service rendered outside the
office proper and service Kon the waterK shall refer to service
rendered on "oard a vessel which is the usual place of work.
%3'$I4( +. 'hiefs and !ssistant 'hiefs of agencies who are
appointed "y the ,resident, officers who rank higher than these
chiefs and assistant chiefs in the three "ranches of the government,
and other presidential appointees need not punch in the "undy
clock, "ut attendance and all a"sences of such officers must "e
recorded.
%3'$I4( .. 5alsification or irregularities in the keeping of time
records will render the guilty officer or employee administratively
lia"le without preFudice to criminal prosecution as the
circumstances warrant.
%3'$I4( >. 4fficers and employees of all departments and
agencies e#cept those covered "y special laws shall render not less
than eight (G) hours of work a day for five (>) days a week or a total
of forty (./) hours a week, e#clusive of time for lunch. !s a general
rule, such hours shall "e from eight oclock in the morning to twelve
oclock noon and from one oclock to five oclock in the afternoon on
all days e#cept %aturdays, %undays and Eolidays.
%3'$I4( ). F7eB,7e ;&r<n/ !&urs (a% ,e a77&;ed su,Ce"$ $&
$!e ds"re$&n &' $!e !ead &' de#ar$(en$ &r a/en"%. In no case shall
the weekly working hours "e reduced in the event the department
or agency adopts the fle#i<time schedule in reporting for work.
%3'$I4( &. In the e#igency of the service, or when necessary "y
the nature of the work of a particular agency and upon
representations with the 'ommission "y the department heads
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 22 -
DECISION
concerned, reAuests for the rescheduling or shifting of work
schedule of particular agency for a num"er of working days less
than the reAuired five (>) days may "e allowed provided that
government officials and employees render a total of forty (./)
hours a week and provided further that the pu"lic is assured of
core working hours of eight in the morning to five in the afternoon
continuously for the duration of the entire work week.
%3'$I4( G. 4fficers and employees who have incurred tardiness
and undertime regardless of minutes per day e#ceeding ten (*/)
times a month for two (@) consecutive months or for two (@) months
in a semester shall "e su"Fect to disciplinary action.
%3'$I4( -. 4ff<setting of tardiness or a"sences "y working for an
eAuivalent num"er of minutes or hours "y which an officer or
employee has "een tardy or a"sent, "eyond the regular or approved
working hours of the employees concerned, shall not "e allowed.
%3'$I4( */. =!en $!e n$eres$ &' #u,7" serv"e s&
re>ures, $!e da7% !&urs &' ;&r< '&r &''"ers and e(#7&%ees (a%
,e eB$ended ,% $!e !ead &' $!e a/en"% "&n"erned, which e#tension
shall "e fi#ed in accordance with the nature of the work: ,rovided,
$hat work in 3#cess of eight (G) hours must "e properly
compensated. (3mphasis supplied)
In the case of ;epartment of Pub%ic !er&ices Labor Union &s' Court
of Industria% Re%ations
41
, the %upreme 'ourt had the opportunity to
interpret a similar law, 6! *GG/
42
(6e legal hours of la"or minimum
41 <.,. No. "%15458. January !8, 19&1.
4! 3e'tion 1. 3e'tion /ive (undred and si;ty%t7o, se'ond *aragra*(, o/ t(e ,evised Administrative
8ode is (ereby amended to read as /o--o7s?
@3e'. 5&!. "ega- (ours o/ -abor minimum re=uirement.
@3u'( (ours, e;'e*t /or s'(oo-s, 'ourts, (os*ita-s and (ea-t( '-ini's or 7(ere t(e e;igen'ies o/ servi'e
so re=uire, s(a-- be as *res'ribed in t(e 8ivi- 3ervi'e ,u-es and as ot(er7ise /rom time to time
dis*osed in tem*orary e;e'utive orders in t(e dis'retion o/ t(e 0resident o/ t(e 0(i-i**ines but
s(a-- be eig(t 182 (ours a day, /or /ive 152 days a 7ee5 or a tota- o/ /orty 14+2 (ours a 7ee5,
e;'-usive o/ time /or -un'(? 0rovided, .(at any em*-oyee or -aborer no7 in t(e em*-oyment o/ t(e
government 7(o s(a-- su//er a redu'tion o/ (is 7ee5-y or dai-y 7age or 'om*ensation be'ause o/ a
redu'tion o/ t(e number o/ days or (ours o/ -abor in a 7ee5, as *rovided by t(is se'tion, subAe't to
t(e minimum dai-y or (our-y 7age or 'om*ensation or *ay *er *ie'e a-ready /i;ed under ,e*ub-i'
A't Numbered 3i; (undred and t7o, s(a-- be given an automati' in'rease in (is dai-y or (our-y
7age or 'om*ensation or in t(e rate *er *ie'e, 7(ose amount in a 7ee5 or a day or *er *ie'e s(a--
be e=ua- to t(e diminution 7(i'( (is dai-y or (our-y or *er *ie'e 7age or 'om*ensation at t(e
time t(is A't 7ent into e//e't s(a-- su//er on a''ount o/ t(e redu'tion o/ days or -abor to /ive days a
7ee5? And *rovided, /urt(er, .(at t(e sa-aries o/ em*-oyees re'eived on mont(-y basis s(a-- not
su//er any diminution on a''ount o/ t(e redu'tion o/ t(e number o/ days o/ -abor a 7ee5.@
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 23 -
DECISION
reAuirement) then in effect, as follows:
0%aid section >)@ of the 6evised !dministrative 'ode, as amended,
provides that the legal num"er of hours in every "ranch of the
1overnment service as well as in government<owned and
controlled corporations shall "e G hours a day, for > days a week, or
a total of ./ hours a week, e#cept those Kfor school, courts, hospitals
and health clinics or where the e#igencies of the service so reAuire.K
###
$his is in accordance with section >)) of the 6evised
!dministrative 'ode. It is to "e o"served that there is nothing in
the law in Auestion or in the implementing order that imposes
upon the respondent 2ayor or 2unicipal Board of 2anila the duty
to apply the "enefit of said law to all employees and la"orers of the
city government. On $!e "&n$rar%, $!e 7a; /ves $& $!e res#&nden$
Ma%&r a(#7e au$!&r$% and ds"re$&n $& eB$end $!er ;&r<
s"!edu7e ,e%&nd $!e #res"r,ed nu(,er &' da%s and !&urs &'
7a,&r.= (3mphasis supplied)
Undenia"ly, "ased on the foregoing, the matter of fi#ing the
working hours is an internal "usiness incidental to the "ureau headHs
e#ercise of authority over the agency.
The President !an implement !han&es in
the -ureau under his po)er of !ontrol
$he ,residents power to undertake changes in "ehalf of the
'ommissioner of the Bureau of Immigration is well within the
"ounds of the ,residents power of control over the agency. !s 'hief
3#ecutive, our 'onstitution grants the ,resident the power of control
over all the agencies and offices under the e#ecutive department.
%ection *&, !rticle 9II of the 'onstitution provides:
%ection *&. $he ,resident shall have control of all the e#ecutive
departments, "ureaus and offices. Ee shall ensure that the laws "e
faithfully e#ecuted.
Indeed the ,resident, as the administrative head of the
e#ecutive department, has the power to control and supervise the
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 24 -
DECISION
operations of all the agencies under him. In Op%e &s' Torres
43
, the
%upreme 'ourt e#plained the e#tent of the ,residential power of
control, as follows:
“As head of the Executive Dea!t"e#t$ the %!eside#t is the &hief
Executive. 'e !e!ese#ts the (ove!#"e#t as a )ho*e a#d sees to it that a**
*a)s a!e e#fo!ced +, the officia*s a#d e"*o,ees of his dea!t"e#t. He
!as "&n$r&7 &ver $!e eBe"u$ve de#ar$(en$, ,ureaus and &''"es.
T!s (eans $!a$ !e !as $!e au$!&r$% $& assu(e dre"$7% $!e
'un"$&ns &' $!e eBe"u$ve de#ar$(en$, ,ureau and &''"e, &r
n$er'ere ;$! $!e ds"re$&n &' $s &''"a7s. C&r&77ar% $& $!e
#&;er &' "&n$r&7, $!e Presden$ a7s& !as $!e du$% &' su#ervsn/
$!e en'&r"e(en$ &' laws for the maintenance of general peace and
pu"lic order. $hus, he is granted administrative power over "ureaus
and offices under his control to ena"le him to discharge his duties
effectively.
!dministrative power is concerned with the work of
applying policies and enforcing orders as determined "y proper
governmental organs. I$ ena,7es $!e Presden$ $& 'B a un'&r(
s$andard &' ad(ns$ra$ve e''"en"% and "!e"< $!e &''"a7
"&ndu"$ &' !s a/en$s.0 (3mphasis supplied)
9erily, the ,resident, as head of the e#ecutive department is
o"liged to see that every government office is managed and
maintained properly "y the persons in charge of it in accordance with
pertinent laws and regulations, and empowered to promulgate rules
and issuances that would ensure a more efficient management of the
e#ecutive "ranch, for so long as such issuances are not contrary to
law.
44
(eedless to state, the %ecretaries of the Cepartment can also
undertake management decisions with respect to offices in the
3#ecutive "ranch of the government, "eing the ,residentHs alter<
egos.
45
%ince the "ureau heads have the power to fi# working hours of
their employees under the law, with more reason is the ,resident, or
his 'a"inet mem"ers, authorized and empowered to do the same.
43 <.,. No. 1!&85. Ju-y !3, 1998.
44 3out(ern 8ross 8ement 8or*oration vs. 8ement Manu/a'turers Asso'iation o/ .(e 0(i-i**ines, <.,.
No. 15854+. August 3, !++5.
45 0imente- vs. >rmita, <.,. No. 1&498 O'tober 13, !++5.
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 25 -
DECISION
The rulin& in Carbonilla $s. -oard of
Airline Representati$es is not
appli!able
,etitioners contend that ,u"lic 6espondents, in making the
issuances e#empting the airline operators from payment of overtime
pay, contradicted the ruling in Carboni%%a &s' (oard of #ir%ine
Representati&es )*'R' +o' ,-./01, !eptember ,0, /2,,3, which declared
that 0'ongress deemed it proper that the payment of overtime
services shall "e shouldered "y the 0other persons served= "y the
B4', that is, the airline companies.=
The argument of Petitioners, whi%e understandab%e, is mis%eading'
$here is no parity in the situation o"taining in the B4' case vis<
M<vis the BI case.
$he case of Carboni%%a su"stantially differs from the present
case. :e must not lose sight of the fact that the previous !rroyo
administration at the time of Carboni%%a through the 'ommissioner of
'ustoms, opted to continue the rendering of overtime services "y
B4' employees
In Carboni%%a, then 3#ecutive Cepartment clearly intended the
continuation of overtime services and had planned to implement an
increase in the rates of overtime pay. $o Auote the pertinent portion of
the %upreme 'ourts narration of facts in Carboni%%a:
0,etitioners 4ffice of the ,resident, et al. alleged that prior to the
amendment of '!4 &<-@, the B4' created on @+ !pril @//@ a
committee to reve; $!e &ver$(e #a% of 'ustoms personnel in
(inoy !Auino International !irport ((!I!) and $& #r&#&se $s
adCus$(en$ 'r&( $!e eB"!an/e ra$e &' P2F $& USG1 to the then
e#change rate of ,>> to U%N*. $he 4ffice of the ,resident, et al.
alleged that '&r a #er&d &' (&re $!an $;& %ears 'r&( $!e "rea$&n
&' $!e "&(($$ee, severa7 (ee$n/s ;ere "&ndu"$ed ;$! $!e
a/en"es "&n"erned, n"7udn/ res#&nden$ B&ard &' Ar7nes
Re#resen$a$ves -BAR., $& ds"uss $!e #r&#&sed ra$e adCus$(en$
that would "e em"odied in an !mendatory 'ustoms
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 26 -
DECISION
!dministrative 4rder. 0 (3mphasis supplied)
3vidently, the proposal to adFust the rates of overtime pay
indicated the intention of the previous !rroyo administration to
continue with the prevailing practice of overtime work for the
governmentHs 'IB services.
4n the other hand, the present !Auino administration, in this
case, clearly intended to adopt a policy to eliminate ultimately, if not
reduce initially, the rendering of overtime services. $he pertinent
portions of the 2emorandum issued "y %ec. ,urisima reveal the
factual "asis for the change in the work schedule. 9erily, the
,resident and the 'a"inet 3conomic 'luster have concluded that
0payment "y private entities of overtime pay rendered "y
government personnel s a de$erren$ $& $!e $&urs( ndus$r% and s
/enera77% re/arded as an rre/u7ar a"$v$%.=
2oreover, the issue in Carboni%%a is whether airline companies
are deemed included within the coverage of %ection +>/) of the $ariff
and 'ustoms 'ode of the ,hilippines ($'',), which provides that:
%ection +>/). #ssignment of Customs 5mp%oyees to
O&ertime $or4' < 'ustoms employees may "e assigned "y
a 'ollector to do overtime work at rates fi#ed "y the
'ommissioner of 'ustoms when the service rendered is
to "e paid "y the importers, shippers or &$!er #ers&ns
served. $he rates to "e fi#ed shall not "e less than that
prescri"ed "y law to "e paid to employees of private
enterprise.
In the Carboni%%a case, the 'ourt of !ppeals ruled that airline
companies do not fall within the term 0other persons served=, as to
render them lia"le for payment of overtime compensation, in the
same manner as importers and shippers.
4n appeal to the Eonora"le %upreme 'ourt, the Eigh 'ourt
ruled in the Carboni%%a case that it is within the discretion of 'ongress
to fi# the parties lia"le for overtime pay. $his is "ased on the 'ourtHs
interpretation that airline companies are no different from importers
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 27 -
DECISION
and shippers. In other words, the %upreme 'ourt stated that 0it is
within the 'ongress discretion who shall "e lia"le for the payment of
overtime pay= n $!e "&n$eB$ &' de$er(nn/ ;!e$!er Ear7ne
"&(#anes? are n"7uded n $!e $er( E&$!er #ers&ns served? n $!e
TCCP.
In this case, the applica"le provision of the ,hilippine
Immigration !ct specifically includes airline companies as one of the
parties lia"le for overtime compensation. Eowever, as discussed
a"ove, %ec. &! of the ,hilippine Immigration !ct intended that airline
companies are lia"le for overtime pay &n7% ;!en $!e C&((ss&ner
(#7e(en$s a s%s$e( &' &ver$(e ;&r<. I' n& &ver$(e ;&r< s
au$!&rDed, ar7ne "&(#anes are n&$ &,7/ed $& #a% &ver$(e
"&(#ensa$&n.
In essence, :e see nothing in Carboni%%a that deviates from the
conclusion that the e#ecutive department can adopt, modify or
change previous policies affecting its operations, particularly the
working hours of its employees.
Carbonilla $s. -oard of Airline
Representati$es does not operate as res
'udi!ata on the present !ase
$he pronouncement in the Carboni%%a case on the o"ligation of
airline companies to pay overtime compensation for overtime
services rendered "y Bureau of 'ustoms employees does not
constitute as res judicata on the issue of constitutionality of the su"Fect
issuances in the case at "ar.
5or there to "e res judicata, the following elements must "e
present: (*) finality of the former FudgmentJ (@) the court which
rendered it had Furisdiction over the su"Fect matter and the partiesJ
(+) it must "e a Fudgment on the meritsJ and (.) there must "e,
"etween the first and second actions, identity of parties, su"Fect
matter and causes of action.
46

46 :eirs o/ "asam vs. 9mengan, <.,. No. 1&815&, )e'ember &, !++&.
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 28 -
DECISION
$he fourth reAuisite is lacking. $here is no identity of parties,
su"Fect matter and causes of action "etween the Carboni%%a case and
the instant case. 5or one, the parties in the Carboni%%a case were
Bureau of 'ustoms employees, while the instant case involves Bureau
of Immigration employees.
$here is also no identity of su"Fect matter. $he su"Fect matter of
an action is Kthe matter or thing with respect to which the controversy
has arisen, concerning which the wrong has "een done, and this
ordinarily is the property, or the contract and its su"Fect matter, or the
thing in dispute.K
47
$he Carboni%%a case arose "ecause of '!4 *<@//>
which increased the rates for overtime pay and %ec. @>/) of the $'',
which was the statutory "asis of the government in increasing the
rates of overtime pay. 2eanwhile, the su"Fect issuances in this case
relates to the a"olition of the system of rendering overtime work.
$here is likewise no identity of causes of action "etween the
Carboni%%a case and the instant case. In Carboni%%a, the 4ffice of the
,resident filed the ,etition for 6eview "efore the %upreme 'ourt
"ecause of the ruling of the 'ourt of !ppeals e#cluding 0airline
companies= from the implementation of '!4 *<@//>. $his was "ased
on the appellate courtHs finding that airline companies are not in the
same category or group as importers and shippers, pursuant to %ec.
+>/) of the $'',.
In this case, ,etitioners filed their complaint "ecause of the
a"olition "y the (ational 1overnment of the system of collection of
overtime pay and the conseAuent refusal of ,rivate 6espondent B!6
to pay for the overtime work rendered "y ,etitioners after the
effectivity of the su"Fect issuances.
The obli&ation to pay for the ser$i!es of
the -I employees pro!eeds from the fa!t
of their employment in the Go$ernment
47 Agustin vs. 3*s. )e -os 3antos, <.,. No. 1&8139, January !+, !++9.
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 29 -
DECISION
In the same vein, :e do not find any usurpation of legislative
prerogative "y the assumption "y the (ational 1overnment of the
o"ligation to pay overtime compensation to the BI employees. $he
government only undertook to pay for overtime work if incidentally,
overtime work may still "e reAuired in the initial stage of
implementation of the @.I& working schedule.
It must "e "orne in mind that the end goal of the @.I& working
schedule is to minimize, if not eliminate overtime work in the Bureau
of Immigration. Eowever, a perusal of the Memorandum would reveal
that there are concerns on the availa"ility or sufficiency of employees
necessary for the continuous operations of the "ureau. $he pertinent
part of the Memo states:
0$he following actions points are esta"lished:
###
4.$he relevant agencies shall reAuest from the CB2
the creation of additional plantilla positions to
address an% s!&r$a/e n an% (an#&;er resu7$n/
'r&( $!e (#7e(en$a$&n &' $!e s!'$n/ s"!edu7e,
with the main international airports as the priority
areas for the implementation of shifting schedule.
###
-.Du!i#( the 31 /u*, 2012 "eeti#($ su((estio#s )e!e "ade o# the (eans
$& address (an#&;er and >uen/ #r&,7e(s. T!ese n"7ude
&u$s&ur"n/ $!e serv"es #er'&r(ed n $!e ar#&r$s to ensure
efficiency and Auality of services= (3mphasis supplied)
1iven such shortage in manpower, it is not impro"a"le that
some of the employees may still "e reAuired to work "eyond the G<
hour workday.
$he lack of manpower in the Bureau of Immigration which may
still result in the e#tension of the working hours of some employees
was consistent with the argument of ,u"lic 6espondents counsel
during the hearing on Cecem"er */, @/*@:
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 30 -
DECISION
!ssociate %olicitor
2acapagal:
###
0(ow, "ut even we assume, your Eonor, $!a$ &ver$(e ;&u7d !ave
$& ,e rendered ,e"ause &' 7a"< &' su''"en$ #ers&nne7 #er'&r(,
(sic) #er!a#s $!e Bureau &' I((/ra$&n d&es n&$ !ave en&u/!
#ers&nne7 $& (an $!&se s!'$s, =e are &' su,(ss&n, +&ur H&n&r,
$!e (anner &' #a%(en$ &' &ver$(eO $he payment of overtime "y
the private entities, (sic) as they are trying to claim is discretionary.
(sic) And $!a$ /&vern(en$ s 7a;'u77%, (ade 7a;'u77% $& #a% $!ese
e(#7&%ees &ver$(e #a%.? (3mphasis supplied)
9iewed in this light, the undertaking of the 1overnment to
finance overtime services must "e viewed to reinforce their o"ligation
as employer of the concerned employees who may "e incidentally
reAuired to still render overtime work.
48
Indeed, while the law
recognizes the right of the employer to demand overtime work from
his employees, it imposes the concomitant o"ligation upon the
employer to pay his workers additional compensation for overtime,
%undays and legal holidays work as well as nighttime work.
49
In other words, the assumption "y the (ational 1overnment of
the o"ligation of paying overtime compensation should "e viewed as
an o"ligation or e#pense which the 1overnment must necessarily
undertake while it transitions from the current to the new system of
work in the "ureau.
%uch undertaking should certainly not "e construed to change,
amend or repeal %ec. &! of the ,hilippine Immigration !ct "ecause it
is only a conseAuent o"ligation for any residual overtime work which
may still "e necessary in the process of initially reducing and
ultimately eliminating the prior system of rendering overtime work.
The sub'e!t issuan!es did not $iolate
e!. *A of the Philippine Immi&ration
A!t
48 Nationa- Mar5eting 8or*oration vs. 0ris'o Bor5ers 9nion, <.,. No. "%19945. )e'ember !9, 19&&.
49 Mindanao Federation o/ "abor vs. 9niversity O/ .(e 0(i-i**ines, as o7ners o/ t(e 9.0. "AN)
<,AN., <.,. No. "%!84&4 3e*tember !5, 1985.
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 31 -
DECISION
$he su"Fect issuances did not alter, repeal or modify %ec.&! of
the ,hilippine Immigration !ct. In the first place, well<settled is the
principle that repeals "y implication are not favored.
50
6epeals "y
implication are not favored as laws are presumed to "e passed with
deli"eration and full knowledge of all laws e#isting on the su"Fect.
51

$he failure to add a specific repealing clause indicates that the intent
was not to repeal any e#isting law, unless an irreconcila"le
inconsistency and repugnancy e#ist in the terms of the new and old
laws.
52
It is clear from the contents and purpose of the issuances that
the 3#ecutive Cepartment recognized the law and a"ided with its
statutory provisions. $he 3#ecutive Cepartment merely opted to
e#ercise its prerogative to implement key changes to address
operational concerns within a su"ordinate agency. !s evident from
the following portions of the 2emorandum:
0!s an immediate response, it was agreed upon that &#era$&ns '&r
$!e rend$&n &' CI9 serv"es shall follow a s!'$n/ s"!edu7e $&
ensure an undsru#$ed 2: !&ur serv"e. Fur$!er, e''e"$ve
((eda$e7%, &ver$(e ;&r< rendered ,% an% /&vern(en$
#ers&nne7 s!a77 ,e #ad ,% $!e "&n"erned a/en"%, a##7%n/
/&vern(en$ ra$es.
E=&r$!% $& n&$e s $!e 'a"$ $!a$ 7e/a7 ,ases &' $!e BI and BOC '&r
"!ar/n/ &ver$(e #a% a/ans$ #rva$e en$$es are (ere7%
#er(ssve, and n&$ (anda$&r%. 'ommonwealth !ct (o. )*+ for
the BI and 6! (o. *-+& for the B4' contain similar wordings and
allow the 'ommissioners to assign their respective employees to
render overtime work, paya"le "y the persons served "y such
government employees. T!ere s, !&;ever, n& #r&!,$&n '&r $!e
na$&na7 /&vern(en$ $& s!&u7der $!e #a%(en$ &' su"! &ver$(e
;&r<, es#e"a77% sn"e $!e sa(e s n&$ '&r $!e #ur#&se &' servn/
an% s#e"'" #ers&n &r en$$% ,u$ $& "&(#7e(en$ $!e &#era$&ns &'
$!e a/en"% ;!en ne"essar%.
###
50 <3#3 et. a-. vs. 8OA, <. ,. No. 1&!3!, O'tober 19, !+11.
51 3e'retary o/ Finan'e v. #-arde, <.,. No. 1!18!, May 9, !++5.
52 #bid.
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 32 -
DECISION
$he agencies under the C! in the conduct of Auarantine
services, on the other hand, finds its legal "asis in 3#ecutive 4rder
(o. @-@, where"y it provides that services performed outside office
hours s!a77 ,e "!ar/ea,7e a/ans$ $!e #ar$es served. =$! $!e
(#7e(en$a$&n &' $!e s!'$n/ s"!edu7e '&r CI9 serv"es,
!&;ever, $!e #r&vs&n ;77 n& 7&n/er ,e a##7"a,7e as $!e
serv"es rendered ;77 a7;a%s ,e #er'&r(ed ;$!n &''"e !&urs.
2eanwhile, the 7etter from %ec. 6o#as, stated that:
0,ursuant to the ,residential directive, $!e "&n"erned Ca,ne$
se"re$ares a/reed $& ad&#$ a #&7"% ;!eren a 2:@A s!'$n/
s"!edu7e ;77 ,e (#7e(en$ed and $!e /&vern(en$ ;77 'u77%
'nan"e $!e serv"es rendered ,% $!e /&vern(en$ e(#7&%ees n
n$erna$&na7 ar#&r$s. Eence, government agencies performing
services in international airports have "een directed to field
sufficient num"er of personnel in shifts to address their operational
reAuirements to avoid rendering overtime.=
:e see nothing in the issuances supportive of ,etitionersH
suggestion that the 3#ecutive department intended to repeal %ec. &!
of the ,hilippine Immigration !ct. 4n the contrary, :e find that the
3#ecutive Cepartment was mindful of the law and cognizant of the
discretion that it gives the BI 'ommissioner in controlling the
working schedule of the BureauHs employees. It would have "een
different if the 2emorandum andIor the 7etter "&n$nued ;$! $!e
#ra"$"e &' rendern/ &ver$(e ;&r< and assu(ed $!e #a%(en$ &'
&ver$(e "&(#ensa$&n. !s aptly stated in the 2emorandum, 0$ith
the imp%ementation of the shifting schedu%e for CI" ser&ices, howe&er, the
pro&ision )!ec' 1# of the Phi%ippine Immigration #ct3 wi%% no %onger be
app%icab%e as the ser&ices rendered wi%% a%ways be performed within office
hours'A
In summary, :e find that the 3#ecutive Cepartment is
empowered under the law to implement a system that will insure
efficiency and address perceived faults in its operations. $he
3#ecutive department is motivated to correct what it considers to "e
an irregular and faulty process of rendering overtime work and the
manner of collecting overtime pay. $here is no encroachment on the
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 33 -
DECISION
'ongressH prerogative to fi# lia"ility for payment of overtime
compensation "ecause the o"ligation of private airline companies to
give overtime compensation, under the ,hilippine Immigration !ct,
will not arise if overtime work is lawfully discontinued "y the
(ational 1overnment in this case.
# fina% note' $he ,hilippine Immigration !ct enacted more than
half a century ago, has its own inadeAuacies and imperfections. It
may now "e opportune for 'ongress to revisit the law and consider
possi"le amendments andIor revisions. Both the airline companies
and the (ational 1overnment, through its 'IB services, share a Foint
responsi"ility to make our airports and seaports safe, efficient and
functional. $his task is im"ued with pu"lic interest.
!s a common carrier, airline companies are contractually
o"ligated to "ring their passengers safely from their point of origin to
their point of destination. $he (ational 1overnment, through its 'IB
services, is e#pected to monitor the ingress and egress of passengers
passing through its "ordersJ to insure that national concerns relating
to its economyIpu"lic revenues, pu"lic safety, pu"lic health and
national security are safeguarded. In a real sense, the (ational
1overnment has a greater stake in the activities of its employees
rendering 'IB services in our airports and seaports.
$he (ational 1overnment has a huge responsi"ility to insure
that proper ta#esIcustoms dutiesIrevenues are collectedJ that
commerce in contra"and, drug trafficking and human trafficking are
preventedJ that threats to pu"lic health, pu"lic safety and national
security are thwarted.
$o claim that, under e#isting laws, airline companies are the
"igger "eneficiaries of overtime work rendered "y 'IB personnel in
our airports and seaports is to misstate the situation and trivialize the
role of the (ational 1overnment.
:ithout a dou"t, the su"Fect issuances finally and correctly
acknowledge that the (ational 1overnment has a "igger
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 34 -
DECISION
responsi"ility towards its 'IB personnel. It has a "etter say as to
when overtime work is necessary and who should assume the
payment of overtime compensation.
5inally, under e#isting laws and Furisprudence, there is no legal
impediment to the (ational 1overnment e#pressly assuming the
o"ligation of airline companies to pay for overtime work rendered "y
the herein ,etitioners.
=HEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED. $he
2emorandum, dated ?uly +*, @/*@, issued "y C45 %ecretary 'esar
,urisima and the 7etter issued "y C4$' %ecretary 2ar 6o#as, dated
!ugust +, @/*@, are declared VALID and CONSTITUTIONAL. $he
concerned agencies are here"y DIRECTED to comply with the
directives under the said issuances.
%u"Fect to 'ivil %ervice rules, the (ational 1overnment,
through the Cepartment of Budget and 2anagement (CB2), is
here"y CI63'$3C $& #a% $!e &ver$(e serv"es actually rendered "y
Bureau of Immigration employees for the month of !ugust and
%eptem"er @/*@, and thereafter if any, the legal "asis "eing that under
the said e#ecutive issuances, the (ational 1overnment has assumed
the payment of said o"ligation.
$he prayer for a $emporary 6estraining 4rder andIor :rit of
,reliminary InFunction is here"y DENIED. (o costs.
SO ORDERED.
NOEL G. TI*AM
Ass&"a$e *us$"e
CA-G.R. SP No. 126920 - 35 -
DECISION
=E CONCUR6
ROMEO F. BAR0A
Ass&"a$e *us$"e
RAMON A. CRUZ
Ass&"a$e *us$"e
CERTIFICATION
,ursuant to !rticle 9III, %ection *+ of the 'onstitution, it is here"y
certified that the conclusions in the a"ove decision were reached in
consultation "efore the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the court.
NOEL G. TI*AM
Ass&"a$e *us$"e
C!ar#ers&n, Seven$! Dvs&n