ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD V. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., 63 SCRA 524 (1975)
CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD V.
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC.,
63 SCRA 524 (1975)
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
The fine imposed
on PAL in CAB Resolution 109 (70) and 132 (70) is that fine or civil penalty
contemplated in the relevant provisions of Republic Act 776 and not a fine in
the nature of criminal penalty as contemplated in the Revised Penal Code. It is
an administrative penalty which administrative officers are empowered to
impose without criminal prosecution.
FACTS
This appeal from
Resolutions Nos. 109(70) and 132(70) of the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB),
imposing a fine of P2 ,50 0 up on appellant Philippine Air Lines Inc. (PAL) for
making a flagstop at Baguio City on May 12, 1970, in its Flight 213.
ISSUE
Whether or
not the Civil Aeronautics Board has authority under the Civil Aeron autics Act
to impose penalties.
RULING
Yes.
Here, the court noted
that The fine
imposed on PAL in CAB Resolution 109 (70) and 132 (70) is that fine or civil
penalty contemplated in the relevant provisions of Republic Act 776 and not a
fine in the nature of criminal penalty as contemplated in the Revised Penal
Code. It is an administrative penalty which administrative officers are
empowered to impose without criminal prosecution. The CAB has t he 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
“eithe” on its own initiative or upon review on appeal from an order or
decision of the Civil Aeronautics Administrator, to determine whether to impose, re mit, mitigate, increase or compromise, such fine and civil penalties, as the case may be.” The power to impose
fines and/or civil penalties and make compromise in respect thereto is
expressly given to the Civil Aeronautics Administrator. To deprive the
CAB of the power to impose fines in the nature of civil penalty for violations
of its rules and regulations would amo unt 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 Aerona utics Administrator whose orders or decisions may be reviewed,
revised, reversed, modified or affirmed by the CAB. Besides, to deprive the CAB
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 publ ic safety and
convenience in air transportation. If everytime the CAB woul d 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 traffic.
