FIRST DIVISION
CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, appellee,
vs.
PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., appellant.
Office of the Solicitor General Felix Q. Antonio, Assistant Solicitor General Hector C. Fule and Solicitor Patricio M. Patajo for appellee.
Siguion Reyna, Montecillo, Belo & Ongsiako and Felipe L. Goson & C.S. Cervantes, Jr. for appellant.
ESGUERRA, J.:ñé+.£ªwph!1
This
appeal from Resolutions Nos. 109 (70) and 132 (70) of the Civil
Aeronautics Board (CAB), imposing a fine of P2,500 upon appellant
Philippine Air Lines Inc. (PAL) for making a flagstop at Baguio City on
May 12, 1970, in its Flight 213, was originally taken to the Court of
Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 45738-R). It was forwarded to this Court by
resolution dated February 11, 1975, of the Court of Appeals (First
Division) on the ground that only a question of law is involved, the
facts being undisputed. Appellant PAL in its manifestation dated
February 17, 1975, interposed no objection thereto, stating that
notwithstanding that said appeal was properly taken to the Court of
Appeals, pursuant to Section 1 of Republic Act 5434 which allows appeal
from the Civil Aeronautics Board on pure question of law, "the question
of whether or not the Civil Aeronautics Board has authority under the
Civil Aeronautics Act to impose penalties" ... "has not yet been decided
by the Supreme Court."
The, undisputed facts are: .têñ.£îhqwâ£
The
Philippine Airlines Inc. is a grantee of a legislative franchise,
Public Act No. 4271, as amended by Republic Acts Nos. 2360 and 2667,
where under the said airline provides both domestic and international
air service. In its domestic service PAL provides, among others,
services between Tuguegarao and Manila (designated as Flight 213) and
between Baguio and Manila (designated as Flight 205).
On May 12, 1970, PAL had an excess of twenty (20)
passengers from Baguio to Manila who cannot be accommodated in its
regular flight. To accommodate these twenty passengers, PAL required the
aircraft operating Flight 213 (Tuguegarao to Manila) to pass Baguio
City on its way to Manila and pick up these passengers. Flight 213 at
that time was carrying only five (5) passengers.
The following are the additional facts established before, and not disputed by, the Civil Aeronautics Board:
(a) At the time of the above incident, no other
airline served Manila and Baguio. No other airline, therefore, was
affected by the aforesaid flagstop.
(b) The expenses incurred by the PAL in operating the
flagstop at Baguio City far exceeded the revenue that it derived from
the twenty passengers that it fetched at Baguio City. The flagstop,
therefore, was motivated not by profit but solely by PAL's desire to
meet a public need for additional service between Baguio and Manila on
that date..
(c) No one, except perhaps the Chairman of the CAB, filed any formal complaint with the C.A.B.
Claiming that PAL should have first obtained the
permission of the CAB before operating the flagstop and that such
failure is a violation of Republic Act No. 776, the CAB imposed a fine
of P5,000.00 upon PAL in a resolution, copy of which is attached hereto
as Annex "A". Upon motion for reconsideration filed by PAL, the CAB
reduced the fine to P2,500.00 (See copy of resolution attached hereto as
Annex "B").
The
appellee adopted the statement of facts appearing on pages 1 to 3 of
appellant's brief as substantially correct and in addition stated "that
Public Act No. 4271, as amended, requires the grantee, Philippine Air
Lines Inc. to comply with the provisions of Republic Act No. 776 and the
regulations promulgated thereunder from time to time".
The first questioned resolution (No. 109(70)) reads: têñ.£îhqwâ£
Considering that operation of flag-stops are not authorized and must be operated only with prior approval by the Board and considering
further that Philippine Air Line, Inc. has conducted such flagstop for
its Flight 212/213 on May 12, 1970 and on previous occasions prior
thereto, the board, after conducting hearings thereon and after due
deliberations on the explanations of PAL's counsel, resolves, as it is
hereby resolved to impose a fine of P5,000.00 against PAL to be paid
within ten (10) days from receipt hereof, pursuant to the provisions of
Section 42(k) of Republic Act 776." (Emphasis supplied).
The Board further resolves to warn PAL that a
repetition of the same will be dealt with more severely. Considering,
however, that flagstops may have to be undertaken with as short notice
as possible, the carriers may notify the technical staff thru the
Executive Director of the CAB of their desire to operate such flagstops
citing the reasons therefor and the Executive Director may give initial
approval thereto, but the same has to be confirmed immediately by the
Board at its next regular meeting.
The
appellant PAL in its motion for reconsideration of the above CAB
Resolution No. 109(70), contended that "there is simply nothing in
Republic Act No. 776 in general, nor in Section 42(k) thereof in
particular, which expressly empowers this Honorable Board (CAB) to
impose a fine and order its payment in the manner pursued in this case
and under CAB Resolution No. 109(70)". It is argued that "the power and
authority to impose fines and penalties is a judicial function exercised
through the regular courts of justice, and that such power and
authority cannot be delegated to the Civil Aeronautics Board by mere
implication or interpretation".
In the regular meeting held on July 6, 1970, the CAB adopted resolution No. 132(70), to wit: têñ.£îhqwâ£
After
considering the motion of Philippine Air Lines Inc. for the
reconsideration of CAB Resolution No. 109(70) the Board resolved to
reduce, as it hereby reduces the amount of fine imposed to P2,500 to be
paid fifteen (15) days after receipt hereof. The imposition of the
fine is not so much on exacting penalty for the violation committed as
the need to stress upon air carriers to desist from wanton disregard of
existing rules, regulations or requirements of the government regulating
agency, if not the additional risk forced upon the passengers who
boarded the aircraft without notice to them of such flagstops or the
delays encountered as a result thereof. The same will serve also as a
warning to all air carriers from operating flagstops without prior
authority.(Emphasis supplied)
To
determine whether the appellee CAB possesses the necessary legal
authority to impose a fine as it did in Resolutions Nos. 109(70) and
132(70), the provisions of Republic Act 776 have to be minutely
scrutinized. Said law created the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) and the
Civil Aeronautics Administration so that in the exercise and performance
of their powers and duties, they shall consider among other things, "as
being in the public interest, and in accordance with the public
convenience and necessity" certain declared policies which include —têñ.£îhqwâ£
(c) The regulation of air transportation in such manner as to recognize and preserve the inherent advantage of, assure the highest degree of safety in, and foster sound economic condition in, such transportation and to improve the relation between, and coordinate transportation by, air carriers; .... ; (Emphasis supplied)
(f) To promote safety of flight in air commerce in the Philippines; ... "(Sec. 4, Republic Act 776).
The Civil Aeronautics Board "shall have the general supervision and regulation of, and jurisdiction and control over, air carriers as well as their
property, property rights, equipment, facilities, and franchise, in so
far as may be necessary for the purpose of carrying out the provisions
of this Act." (Sec. 10 Republic Act 776). It has the power "to issue, deny, amend, revise, alter, modify, cancel, suspend or revoke, in whole or in part, upon petition or complaint, or upon its own initiative any temporary operating permit or Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity" (Sec. 10(c) (1) Republic Act 776). (Emphasis supplied)
The CAB has the power to "investigate, upon complaint or upon its own initiative, whether any individual or air carrier, domestic or foreign, is violating any provision of this act, or the rules and regulations issued thereunder, and shall take such action, consistent with the provisions of this Act, as may be necessary to prevent further violation of such provisions, or rules and regulations so issued (Section 10(D) Republic Act 776). (Emphasis supplied)
Likewise, the CAB has the power to "review, revise,
reverse, modify or affirm on appeal any administrative decision or
order" of the Civil Aeronautics Administrator on matters pertaining to "imposition of civil penalty or fine in connection with the violation of any provision of this Act or rules and regulations issued thereunder." It has the power also "either on its own initiative or upon review on appeal from an order or decision of the Civil Aeronautics Administrator, to determine whether to impose, remit, mitigate, increase, or compromise, such fine and civil penalties,
as the case may be." (Sec. 10(F) (G) Republic Act 776). (Emphasis for
emphasis). The power to impose fines and/or civil penalties and make
compromise in respect thereto is expressly given to the Civil
Aeronautics Administrator (Sec. 32(17) Republic Act 776).
There is no doubt that the fine imposed on appellant
PAL in CAB resolution 109(70) and 132(70) is that fine or civil penalty
contemplated and mentioned in the foregoing provisions of Republic Act
776 and not a fine in the nature of criminal penalty as contemplated in
the Revised Penal Code, because the "fine" in this case was imposed by
the C.A.B. because of appellant PAL's violation of C.A.B. rules on
flagstops without previous authority on "May 12, 1970 and on previous occasions",
said C.A.B. explaining clearly in its resolution No. 132(70) that the
"imposition of the fine is not so much on exacting penalty for the
violation committed as the need to stress upon the air carriers to
desist from wanton disregard of existing rules, regulations or
requirements of the government regulating agency ... " In other words,
it is an administrative penalty which administrative officers are
empowered to impose without criminal prosecution. Similar power has been
granted to the Commissioners of Immigration and Customs for violation
of the Immigration law and Tariff and Customs Code, respectively. (Sec.
44 of Commonwealth Act 613, Immigration Act of 1940, as amended by R.A.
118, 135, 144, 503, 749, 827 and 1901; Sec. 2307 of R.A. 1937, Tariff
and Customs Code) The same power has been given to the Public Service
Commission in its exercise of an effective administrative regulatory
supervision and control over public service enterprises. (Section 21,
Chapter IV, Commonwealth Act No. 146, as amended) .
We have no quarrel with appellant PAL's contention
that the C.A.B. has no power to impose fines in the nature of criminal
penalty and that only courts of justice can do so. It could easily be
discerned from a scrutiny of the provision on Chapter VII of Republic
Act 776, on "Violation and penalties" that whenever the law provides a
penalty for a violation involving fine and/or imprisonment (criminal in
nature), the words "in the discretion of the court" always appear (Sec.
42 (E) (F) (G) (N) Republic Act 776) for the very simple reason that the
C.A.B. is not authorized to impose a criminal penalty, but in those
cases where the violation is punishable by a fine or civil penalty, the
law does not include the words "in the discretion of the court". There
exists but an insignificant doubt in Our mind that the C.A.B. is fully
authorized by law (Republic Act 776) to impose fines in the nature of
civil penalty for violations of its rules and regulations. To deprive
the C.A.B. of that power would amount to an absurd interpretation of the
pertinent legal provision because the CAB is given full power on its
own initiative to determine whether to "impose, remit, mitigate,
increase or compromise" "fines and civil penalties", a power which is
expressly given to the Civil Aeronautics Administrator whose orders or
decision may be reviewed, revised, reversed, modified or affirmed by the
C.A.B.. Besides, to deprive the C.A.B. of its power to impose civil
penalties would negate its effective general supervision and control
over air carriers if they can just disregard with impunity the rules and
regulations designed to insure public safety and convenience in air
transportation. If everytime the C.A.B. would like to impose a civil
penalty on an erring airline for violation of its rules and regulations
it would have to resort to courts of justice in protracted litigations
then it could not serve its purpose of exercising a competent, efficient
and effective supervision and control over air carriers in their vital
role of rendering public service by affording safe and convenient air
transit.
It is appellant's view that the fine imposed by the
CAB was not commensurate with the nature and extent of violation done,
since according to its argument the Tuguegarao-Manila flight F213
actually served a public need when it made a flagstop at Baguio on May
12, 1970 to pick up 20 passengers who could not be accommodated in the
Baguio-Manila flight. Appellant's argument overlooks the fact that when
it violated the rule on unauthorized flagstop, it might have done some
public service to the 20 Baguio passengers but to the prejudice and
inconvenience of the five Tuguegarao-Manila passengers. The appellant
was under obligation to bring the five Tuguegarao-Manila passengers
directly to Manila and not to make a flagstop in Baguio City to pick up
additional passengers, which is not scheduled in that flight. There is
no question that for that plane to descend and ascend at the airport in
Baguio City resulted in additional risk to its five Tuguegarao- Manila
passengers and also to their inconvenience. Besides, it is an
established fact that the C.A.B. imposed the civil penalty not only for
appellant's violation of May 12, 1970, but also for violation "on
previous occasions" and the "need to stress upon the air carriers to
desist from wanton disregard of existing rules, regulation or
requirements of the government regulating agency". To Our Mind, the
rules regulating flight of air carriers must be strictly complied with
because they are designed for the passenger's safety and convenience and
violations thereof should not be slightly treated since said violations
might result in irremediable disaster. The C.A.B. did not commit any
mistake in imposing a civil penalty on appellant for its violation of
the rule prohibiting unauthorized flagstop to serve "as a warning to all
air carriers from operating flag-stops without prior authority". It
appears, however, that the PAL committed the violation of the C.A.B.
regulation against flagstops without malice and with no deliberate
intent to flout the same. For this reason, the penalty imposed by the
C.A.B. may be mitigated and reduced to a nominal sum.
WHEREFORE, the resolution appealed from is modified
by reducing the administrative fine imposed on the appellant PAL to ONE
HUNDRED PESOS (P100.00).
SO ORDERED.
Castro (Chairman), Makasiar, Muñoz Palma and Martin, JJ., concur.1äwphï1.ñët
Teehankee. J., concurs in the result.
No comments:
Post a Comment