FIRST PLYWOOD CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND PHILIPPINES PORTS AUTHORITY, RESPONDENTS.

Petitioner First Plywood Corporation (FPC) was impleaded as
defendant in a complaint filed on March 21, 1984 by herein private respondent
Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) before the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga
City. Sought to be collected by PPA
were arrastre service charges it had rendered for FPC, then amounting to P154,445.62,
exclusive of interest (p. 2, Record).

PPA’s demand was anchored on Paragraph B2 (1) of PPA
Administrative Orders No. 02-80 and 05-81 which provides:

“2. The
following rates for other miscellaneous services rendered in the handling and
custody of cargoes in the Port of Zamboanga are hereby prescribed and should be
collected as follows:

(1) General cargo
which requires greater work than hooking the net or sling [emphasis
supplied] containing cargo from the carrying truck to the ship’s tackle, per
ton of 40 cu. ft. or 1,000 kilos – P5.36* and P6.20.**

Petitioner FPC, for its part, refused to pay the rates under the
aforequoted sub-paragraph and instead claimed that the services rendered by PPA
on the handling of petitioner’s cargo fall under Paragraph B in relation to
sub-paragraphs (1) and (3), which we quote hereunder:

“B. MERCHANDISE/ARTICLES FOR EXPORT– For handling
of merchandise, articles for export from consignor’s transportation upon the
piers or wharves to the sling of the exporting vessel:

(1)  General cargo, except as specifically
mentioned hereunder per ton of 40 cubic feet or 1,500 kilos – P0.58 [Adm. Order
No. 02-80] P0.67 [Adm. Order No. 05-81].

(3)  Provided, that the service shall consist only
of the labor in hooking the net or sling containing the cargo from the
carrying truck to the ship’s tackle.” (Underscoring supplied.)

PPA was initially unsuccessful in its bid to charge the higher
rates but upon appeal to the Court of Appeals, the judgment of the Zamboanga
regional trial court was reversed in a decision (CA-G.R. CV No. 07907, March 4,
1988) of the appellate court’s Thirteenth Division (Purisima [P], Chua, La
Peña, JJ), the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby REVERSED; and
instead, defendant-appellee is hereby ordered to pay plaintiff-appellant the
sum of P79,582.45 plus legal interest thereon at six (6%) percent per annum
from date of commencement of litigation on March 21, 1984. For lack of merit, the counterclaim of
defendant-appellee is hereby DISMISSED.”

Upon, the appellate court declining to favorably act on FPC’s
motion for reconsideration, the instant petition was filed on August 18, 1988,
but notwithstanding the seemingly propitiousness of the date of filing with its
abundance of the number 8, a lucky number under Chinese zodiac, such
benignancy, after a study of the petition, has proven false.

The issue presented is simple enough: Is the service performed by PPA limited only to “the labor
in hooking the net or sling” or is such service, as the administrative
orders call it, “greater work than hooking”? If it be the latter case, then PPA has the
authority to charge the higher rates; but if it be otherwise, then reversal of
the decision of respondent court would follow as a matter of course.

As the administrative orders issued by PPA, as well as the
particular provisions of the Revised Tariff and Customs Code from which the
administrative orders were lifted, do we define the terms “labor in
hooking” and “greater work than hooking”, the rule of
construction that should be applied is that the terms must be understood in
their literal meaning.

Thus, “labor in hooking” can consist only of attaching
the hook of the derrick’s boom to the sling or net holding a cargo in order
that said cargo may be lifted into the carrying vessel. The “labor in hooking” could then
conceivably require the services of one person to do the attaching of the hook
to the net or sling.

Notwithstanding the protestations of petitioner FPC that the
other “additional works” performed by PPA in loading FPC’s cargo are
merely minor requisite acts to complete the work of hooking or are component
parts in the labor of hooking, we believe that it has been amply shown that
indeed, the work performed by PPA is “greater work than
hooking”. The findings of the
respondent court on this point are well-taken and we quote the same, to wit:

“There is on record preponderance of proof abundantly showing
that such arrastre services rendered by appellant to appellee were not limited
to just hooking but involved much greater work and labor. For instance, Bonifacio Ubunga, Jr., the
knowledgeable foreman of Zamboanga Port Services so succinctly declared:

“x x x that the moment the shipment of the defendant arrives
at the wharfsides, the head checker received the cargoes alongside the vessel
and will jot down in their tally sheet, the freight number and the destination
and after that, the dock workers will signal the truck driver to position the
truck in a manner that the cargo would be perpendicular to the cargo hood of
the vessel before slinging; in that position, the plaintiff’s dock workers
would place the sling around the net of the freight, while the cargo is still
on the truck; that this job of slinging the cargo while on the truck can be
handled by two or three workers of the plaintiff; that after the two or three
dock workers, have completed the slinging of the shipment, the dock workers
will make a signal to somebody on board the vessel that the cargo is ready, and
after which he goes down the truck and the cargo is hoisted on board the
vessel; and thereon, the job of lowering the cargo into the ship hull and
arranging thereat belong to another stevedoring outfit not under the services
of the plaintiff and even the signal man on board the vessel also belonged to
the other stevedoring unit; that the hatch checker who does the tallying of the
freight number and the destination of the cargo is the employee of the
plaintiff; the said process continues until the loading (operation) of the
shipment is over and then as foreman he made his report to the Port Manager and
accordingly billed the defendant; that in one shipment, the plaintiff employed
one supervisor, one foreman, one assistant foreman, one head checker, bill man,
and two hooking men; that prior to the loading of the cargo, they must see to
it that everything is well-fixed, the slinging, the steel plates, the nails are
being looked upon by the carpen­ter; that the work plaintiff performed to
defendant is more than hooking.” (pp. 14-23, tsn., March 14, 1985.)

Then, too, is the following narration by Mr. Alvin Fernandez,
Supervisor of the Zamboanga Port Arrastre Services:

‘that the services rendered by plaintiff to defendant consisted of
the following: a) Checking services –
that is when the cargo comes in from the wharf, the head checker gets the
freight number, the quantity and the tons (weight) of the cargoes that are
supposed to be loaded on a particular hatch of the vessel to know whether the
said exporter has not over loaded or undershipped his shipment; slinging of the
cargo to be hoisted to the vessel – here the dock workers will go up the truck
to place the sling underneath the crates that are to be loaded and after that
the signal man will signal the other signal man of the stevedoring outfit, that
the cargo is ready to be hoisted; slinging of the forklift to be used by the
stevedoring on board the vessel; handling of the dunnage or putting of form
lumber also to be used by the stevedoring on board the vessel; (pp. 6 to 15,
tsn., May 17, 1985). On
cross-examination, he testified that for all the services that plaintiff
rendered to the defendant, the latter’s payment is not enough (p. 18, tsn., May
17, 1985).’

On the strength of such competent and trustworthy evidence adduced,
We are of the irresistible conclusion and so find, that the arrastre services
rendered by the plaintiff-appellant to defendant-appellee with respect to
subject export cargoes did not consist merely of hooking which would require
just one person to perform the routinary task of attaching the sling holding
the cargo to a hook attached to a cable that would lift the cargo to the
vessel, but something more than hooking. As well explained by the appellant, in a situation where only hooking is
called for, the cargo to be lifted is already well prepared for lifting without
necessitating any extra work on the part of the person tasked to attach the
sling to the hook; but it was not so in the case under consideration. It can be gathered unerringly from the
evidence at hand that hooking was not the only service rendered by appellant to
the cargoes of appellees referred to. The arrastre services rendered by the former for the latter required at
least three dock worker to do the actual hooking and slinging of the cargo and
involved also during the loading thereof, the presence of a supervisor, head
checker, and bill man (pp. 16, 20, 21, tsn., March 14, 1985); such that
appellant is right in charging for such services P6.20 per metric ton or 1,000
kilos. Evidently, the rate of 0.67 per
metric ton used by appellee is not commensurate with the nature and extent of
services rendered and manpower utilized by the appellant. Equally well substantiated is the additional
service done by appellant’s workers in doing the dunnage for subject cargoes of
appellee (page 14, tsn., May 17, 1985). As was elaborated upon by appellant’s knowledgeable witnesses, dunnage
is not part of hooking. It related to
the placing of lumber under the cargo to protect the same from the water coming
into the hold of the vessel or in between the different parcels of cargo to
prevent them from injuring each other (13 Words and Phrases, 631; PPA Order No.
13-77, Sec 2 [ff]).

Indeed, from the established facts and circumstances which the
trial court overlooked or misappreciated, it is decisively clear that the
arrastre services in question, which appellant rendered and appellee availed of
for the said export cargoes, consisted of a larger volume of work than mere
hooking; and the arrastre charges therefor have to be assessed under the
pertinent provision of B 2. (1), instead of paragraph 3, sub paragraph (1) and
(3) of the Administrative Order invoked by the parties. In other words, appellant is entitled to be
paid by appellee for the arrastre services litigated upon at P6.20 per metric
ton; not at P0.67, as erroneously computed below.”

Verily, it would be specious for FPC to argue that all the acts
enumerated by the Court of Appeals are but component parts of the attachment of
the hook to the sling or net. If this
were so, then the administrative orders should and would have so stated. As it is, however, it is not feasible and
certainly it is far from logical to tack each and every act preparatory and
posterior to the actual hooking as part of the hooking procedure. Indeed, these other acts could but be those
referred to as “greater work than hooking”.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby dismissed and the
decision under review affirmed, without special pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., Acting C.J., (Chairman), Bidin, Davide, Jr., and Romero, JJ., concur.

*
Per PPA Adm. Order No. 02-80.

**
Per PPA Adm. Order No. 05-81.