Lorenzo Shipping Corporation v. Court of Appeals and Filipinas Port Services, Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Lorenzo Shipping Corporation (Lorenzo Shipping) engaged the stevedoring and arrastre services of respondent Filipinas Port Services, Inc. (Filport) for cargo loading and unloading at the Port of Davao. As of May 31, 1981, Lorenzo Shipping's outstanding account for these services amounted to P375,263.05. Procedural History: Filport filed a collection case against Lorenzo Shipping. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Filport, ordering Lorenzo Shipping to pay the outstanding amount, legal interest, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision in toto. The Petition: Lorenzo Shipping filed a petition for review on certiorari, questioning only the stevedoring charge of P232,632.00 for ten-footer containers, admitting the balance of P142,631.05 for arrastre and other charges. The core of the dispute lies in whether PPA Administrative Order 08-79 authorized Filport to apply the handling rate for 20-footer containers to Lorenzo Shipping's 10-footer containers.
Issue(s)
Whether PPA Administrative Order 08-79 authorized respondent stevedoring company to apply the handling rate for 20-footer containers to petitioner's 10-footer containers. Whether respondent company is entitled to the award of attorney's fees of 25% of the principal claim plus litigation expenses of P5,000.00, and if so, what is a reasonable amount for attorney's fees.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED, with the modification that the award for attorney's fees is reduced to 10% of the principal amount. Costs are against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the stevedoring charges for 10-footer containers: The Court affirmed the rulings of the RTC and the CA, holding that PPA Administrative Order No. 08-79, which prescribed arrastre and stevedoring rates for container handling in all ports, did not distinguish between container sizes. The order was clear and thus ought to be enforced. The petitioner's attempt to interpret the order in light of an earlier administrative order (PPA Administrative Order No. 06-78) which applied only to North Harbor, Port of Manila, was deemed an improper attempt to create confusion where none existed. The courts below correctly found that Filport's billing was based on PPA Administrative Order No. 08-79 and subsequent administrative orders, and that the petitioner failed to prove by competent evidence that the rates charged were illegal or unauthorized. The petitioner's claim of invalidity of PPA Memorandum Circular No. 06-81 was dismissed as a collateral attack, which cannot be allowed. Therefore, the rates imposed were considered legal, valid, and authorized. On the award of attorney's fees: While the lower courts awarded 25% of the principal sum as attorney's fees, the Supreme Court found this award to be grossly excessive. The Court reduced the attorney's fees to a more reasonable amount of 10% of the principal claim of P375,263.05.
Main Doctrine
The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) Administrative Order No. 08-79, which prescribes arrastre and stevedoring rates for container handling in all ports, is clear and should be enforced even if it does not distinguish between container sizes, absent any specific provision for smaller containers or a revocation of the order.