This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-08-06 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| On September 25, 2003, the RTC issued an Order[16] denying respondent UHPAP's motion and declaring that "pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 133763, PPA Resolution Nos. 1486, 1541, and 1554 are valid and effective thereby disallowing the collection of overtime pay."[17] The RTC explained:x x x [W]hen the Supreme Court ruled and declared that Executive Order 1088 does not deprive the PPA of its power and authority to promulgate rules and rates for payment of fees including additional charges, it had effectively ruled on the validity of PPA resolutions 1486, 1541, and 1554. Said resolutions did not violate any provision of Executive Order 1088 and did not constitute any diminution of the rates provided by said Executive Order. They merely repealed the collection of overtime premiums or charges which is provided not by Executive Order 1088 but by another PPA Administrative Order 03-85. This is not inconsistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court that Executive Order 1088 did not repeal the additional pay for holiday work and premium pay for nighttime service, collectively referred to as overtime pay provided in Customs Administrative Order No. 15-65 and PPA Administrative Order 03-85. The Supreme Court did not consider subsequent PPA resolutions or administrative orders affecting overtime pay because this was not brought out as an issue. | |||||
|
2008-08-06 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| (2) a construction of Executive Order No. 1088 declaring that the schedule of rates provided therein applies to the entire package of pilotage services under the compulsory pilotage scheme and that UHPAP cannot separately charge AISLI for each pilotage service rendered.[37] The disposition of the RTC in favor of petitioners in the declaratory relief petition was the decision elevated by the UHPAP to this Court.[38] Upon the reversal of the RTC decision by this Court, UHPAP went back to the RTC on a motion for execution. Verily, that course of action on the part of UHPAP was procedurally infirm. | |||||