The Regional Trial Court has ordered the Philippine Ports Authority to cease and desist from enforcing or implementing the revocation of the certificate of registration/permit to operate of BREDCO which took effect June 1.

PPA revoked the PTO of BREDCO for implementing higher tariffs without authority of the PPA. The revocation meant that PPA will be charging BREDCO 100 percent usage and wharfage fees on all vessels and cargoes loaded and unloaded at the port.

As a result BREDCO filed a civil action for injunction with damages with prayer for preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order saying it was not given due process before the revocation. In his order dated July 3, RTC Judge Fernando Elumba, also directed the PPA and any and all persons acting under its direction, to cease and desist from charging 100 percent usage and wharfage fees on all vessels and cargoes loaded and/or unloaded at the BREDCO port and upon the plaintiff itself and its agent, as well as, from collecting 10 percent of the stevedoring and arrastre service fees.

Elumba also ordered BREDCO to file immediately a bond of P3 million executed in favor of the defendants (PPA) to answer for whatever damages it may sustain by reason of the restraining order, if the Court should finally decide that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief granted.

He set the hearing of the application for the issuance of preliminary injunction on July 19 and directed the parties to submit their position papers together with the affidavits and documents for purpose of injunction, on or before the date in support of their respective theories.

Meanwhile, the hearing of the motion to file compromise agreement is set today at RTC Branch 42.

During the hearing on June 12, both parties manifested their willingness to settle the case, upon the suggestion of the Court. Before the compromise agreement was acted upon by the court, the plaintiff filed a motion to file and admit amended compromise agreement dated June 13.

In its motion, the plaintiff prayed, among others, that the compromise agreement already submitted to the Court did not clearly express the true intent of the plaintiff and therefore, needs amendment.*CGS

back to top