FIRST DIVISION
August 24, 2016
G.R. No. 183173
THE CHAIRMAN and EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PALAWAN COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, and THE PALAWAN COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, Petitioners
vs.
EJERCITO LIM DOING BUSINESS AS BONANZA AIR SERVICES, AS REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, CAPT. ERNESTO LIM, Respondent
D E C I S I O N
BERSAMIN, J.:
This appeal seeks the reversal of the decision promulgated on May 28, 2008, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) granted the petition for prohibition of the respondent,2 and enjoined the petitioners from enforcing Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 00-05, Series of 2002; Resolution No. 03- 211; any and all of their revisions; and the Notice of Violation and Show Cause Order for being null and void.
Antecedents
Petitioners Ex.ecutive Director and Chairman of the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD), Messrs. Winston G. Arzaga and Vicente A. Sandoval, respectively, were the public officials tasked with the duty of executing and implementin A.O. No. 00-05 and the Notice of Violation and Show Cause Order, while the PCSD was the government agency responsible for the governance, implementation, and policy direction of the Strategic Environment Plan (SEP) for Pala wan. On the other hand, the respondent was the operator of a domestic air carrier doing business under the name and style Bonanza Air Services, with authority to engage in nonscheduled air taxi transportation of passengers and cargo for the public. His business operation was primarily that of transporting live fish from Palawan to fish traders.3
The PCSD issued A.O. No. 00-05 on February 25, 2002 to ordain that the transport of live fish from Palawan would be allowed only through traders and carriers who had sought and secured accreditation from the PCSD. On September 4, 2002, the Air Transportation Office (ATO) sent to the PCSD its communication to the effect that A TO-authorized carriers were considered common carriers, and, as such, should be exempt from the PCSD accreditation requirement. It attached to the communication a list of its authorized carriers, which included the respondent's air transport service.4
The respondent asserted that he had continued his trade without securing the PCSD-required accreditation; that the PCSD Chairman had started harassing his clients by issuing Memorandum Circular No. 02, Series of 2002, which contained a penal clause imposhig sanctions on the availment of transfer services by unaccredited aircraft carriers such as cancellation of the PCSD accreditation and perpetual disqualification from engaging in live fish trading in Palawan; that due to the serious effects of the memorandum, the respondent had sent a grievance letter to the Office of the President; and that the PCSD Chairman had nonetheless maintained that the respondent's business was not a common carrier, and should comply with the requirement for PCSD accreditation.
In disregard of the prohibition, the respondent continued his business operation in Palawan until a customer showed him the Notice of Violation and Show Cause Order issued by the PCSD to the effect that he had still made 19 flights in October 2002 despite his failure to secure accreditation from the PCSD; and that he should explain his actuations within 15 days, otherwise, he would be sanctioned with a fine of ₱50,000.00. 5
According to the respondent, he had not received the Notice of Violation and Show Cause Order. 6
The respondent filed a petition for prohibition in the CA, which issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) upon his application after finding that there were sufficient grounds to issue the TR0. 7 After the petitioners did not file their comment despite notice, the CA issued the writ of preliminary injunction upon his posting of the injunction bond for P.50,000.00.8
The petitioners countered that the petition for prohibition should have been dismissed because A.O. No. 00-05 was in accord with the mandate of the Constitution and of Republic Act No. 7611 (Strategic Environmental Plan for Palawan Act);9 that Resolution No. 03-211 had meanwhile amended or repealed portions of A.O. No. 00-05, thereby rendering the issues raised by the petition for prohibition moot and academic; 10 that by virtue of such developments, the PCSD accreditation was now required for all carriers, except those belonging to the Government; that on August 18, 2003, the respondent had received another notice regarding the enactment of Resolution No. 03-211; and that they had subsequently dispatched to the respondent on September 9, 2003 another show cause order in view of his continued non-compliance with Resolution No. 03-211. 11
The salient portions of Resolution No 03-211 read:
. A new Paragraph 1.5 is hereby added to Section 1 of Administrative Order No. 00-05, as amended, as follows:SECTION 3
"CARRIER - any natural or juridical person or entity, except the Government, that is engaged or involved in the transportation of live fish or any other aquatic fresh or saltwater products, whether or not on a daily or regular manner or schedule and whether or not for compensation, from any point within or out of the Province of Palawan under a contract or transportation, whether or not in writing, through the use of aircrafts, seacrafts, land vehicles or any other mode of transportation, whether or not registered, mechanical or motorized in nature, and whether or not such persons or entities are common carriers or not as defined by law and regardless of the place of registration of such persons or entities as well as the crafts and vehicles used or employed by them."
x x x x
SECTION 5. The new section 2 for Administrative Order No. 00- 05, as amended, shall read as follows:
"Section 2. Accreditation. Before it can proceed with the transport or carriage of live fish or any other aquatic fresh or saltwater products within or out of the Province of Palawan, a CARRIER must secure a CERTIFICATE OF ACCREDITATION from the PCSD." 12