WHEREFORE, for all foregoing considerations and finding that the Applicant is a domestic corporation, legally and financially capable to operate and maintain the existing service; that the approval of the instant application will promote public interest and convenience in a proper and suitable manner, this Authority hereby grants Applicant, Sta. Clara Shipping Corporation, a Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) to operate the ship, MV KING FREDERICK, in the route: Matnog, Sorsogon - Allen, Northern Samar and vice-versa, for the carriage of passengers and cargoes, for a period of FIVE (5) YEARS from date hereof, subject to the following conditions:(Approved during the 99th Quasi-Judicial Board Meeting held on 22 December 2003.)
- That the terms and conditions set forth in the attached Certificate of Public Convenience and its Rider thereto shall remain in full force and effect;
- That the Applicant shall submit the ship's renewed Certificate of Inspection (CI), Coastwise License (CWL), Radio/Ship Station License, Class Certificate and Safety Management Certificate prior to every expiration thereof, and the ship's Passenger Insurance Coverage fifteen (15) days prior to every expiration thereof, otherwise, this Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) shall be deemed suspended until compliance/submission thereof;
- That the Applicant shall at all times carry on board its ship a copy of the latest authority to operate (CPC/PA/SP), the PMMRR 1997, relevant MARINA/PCG/PPA Circulars/Issuances, the SOLAS 74 as amended, Collision Regulations 1972, STCW Convention 1978/95, among other IMO Conventions;
- That the Applicant shall comply with the provisions of MARINA Memorandum Circular No. 154 dated 23 February 2000 on "Reiteration of Safety-Related Policies/Guidelines/Rules and Regulations For Guidance and Strict Compliance"; and
- That any violation of the terms and conditions of this Certificate of Public Convenience shall result to the suspension/cancellation and/or revocation thereof.
SO ORDERED.6
UPON THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THIS CASE, THUS, the petition at bench must be, as it is hereby GRANTED. The decision of the MARINA in Maritime Industry Case No. 2001-033 dated January 26, 2004 and its Resolution dated September 16, 2004 denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration are hereby VACATED and SET ASIDE. Without costs in this instance.
SO ORDERED.13
WHEREFORE, upon the foregoing holdings, and finding that applicant corporation is legally and financially capable to operate and maintain the proposed service; that the approval of the instant application will promote public interest and convenience in proper and suitable manner, this Authority hereby grants applicant corporation STA. CLARA SHIPPING CORPORATION a CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE (CPC) to operate the vessels MV KING FREDERICK, MV NELVIN JULES and MV HANSEL JOBETT for conveyance of passengers and cargoes in the applied route valid for a period of FIFTEEN (15) YEARS from date hereof, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the attached Certificate of Public Convenience.
This decision takes effect immediately and shall become final, unless an appeal or a timely motion for reconsideration has been filed within fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof.
SO ORDERED.18
WHEREFORE, public respondent Marina's Decision dated June 6, 2005, in so far as it grants private respondent Sta. Clara Shipping Corporation a Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) to operate the vessel KING FREDERICK is hereby RESCINDED, NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. The public respondent Legaspi Maritime Regional Office (LMRO), through its Regional Director, Mr. Lucita T. Madarang, is thus ordered to explain why she should not be cited for contempt for rendering the assailed decision in LMRO 05-056.
SO ORDERED.22
I. The honorable Court of Appeals gravely and seriously erred in failing to consider and take judicial notice of the passage of RA 9295 in the resolution of the petition filed before it.
II. The honorable Court of Appeals gravely and seriously erred in reversing the decision of the honorable MARINA [despite] the fact that it has become final and executory.
III. The honorable Court of Appeals gravely and seriously erred in reversing the decision of the honorable MARINA despite the fact that the decision is in perfect accord with law and jurisprudence.
IV. The honorable Court of Appeals gravely and seriously erred in nullifying the CPC issued to petitioner pursuant to RA 9295.23
Endnotes:
1 Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo F. Sundiam and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente; rollo, p. 94. The decision annulled the January 26, 2004 decision of the Maritime Industry Authority in Case No. 2001-033 and cancelled the old CPC of MV King Frederick.
2 Id., pp. 130 and 157. The first July 27, 2005 resolution denied the motion for reconsideration of Sta. Clara. The second July 27, 2005 resolution annulled the June 6, 2005 decision of the Legaspi Maritime Regional Office in Case No. LMRO-05-056 and cancelled the new CPC of MV King Frederick.
3 Originally docketed as Case No. 20-072 (rollo, p. 33), the application was amended and docketed as Case No. 2001-033 (rollo, p. 54).
4 Namely, MV Northern Samar, MV Princess Bicolandia and MV Princess of Mayon (all owned by Bicolandia, et al.) and MV Maharlika I and MV Maharlika II owned by St. Bernard Service Corp.
5 Motion to Dismiss, rollo, p. 35.
6 Rollo, pp. 74-75.
7 Id., p. 77.
8 Id., p. 75.
9 Id.
10 Rollo, p. 79.
11 Id., p. 85.
12 CA rollo, p. 2.
13 Supra at 1, p. 114.
14 RA 9295, also known as the Domestic Shipping Development Act of 2004, approved May 3, 2004.
15 Dated November 30, 2004.
16 Rule XVII, Sec. 1 provides: "Within six (6) months upon the effectivity of the IRR, existing liner and tramp operators shall be required to file appropriate application for issuance of CPC under the Act and this IRR."
17 As cited in the Decision dated June 6, 2005 of the LMRO, rollo, p. 300.
18 Id.
19 Rollo, p. 117.
20 Id., pp. 140-141.
21 Supra at 2.
22 Rollo, p. 154.
23 Id., p. 12.
24 Petition, rollo, pp. 25-26; Reply, rollo, pp. 328-329; Memorandum, rollo, pp. 360-361.
25 Memorandum, rollo, p. 456.
26 Rogelio Antalan v. Hon. Aniano Desierto, G.R. No. 152258, 30 November 2006, 509 SCRA 176.
28 The new CPC is fundamentally different from the old CPC in that the new expires in 15 years while the old in 5 years; and the new is issued to the operator or owner while the old was issued to the vessel. Hence, the new CPC cannot be considered the mere extension of the old CPC.
29 Mattel, Inc. v. Emma Francisco, G.R. No. 166886, 30 July 2008, 560 SCRA 504. See Felipe Magbanua, et al. v. Rizalino Uy, G.R. No. 161003, 6 May 2005, 458 SCRA 184.
30 Spouses Edmundo Osea and Ligaya Osea v. Antonio Ambrosio and Rodolfo Perez, G.R. No. 162774, 7 April 2006, 486 SCRA 599.
31 Josue Engano v. Honorable Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 156959, 27 June 2006, 493 SCRA 323.