Discretion of Public Officials

AVENUE ARRASTRE AND STEVEDORING CORPORATION, INC., petitioner,

vs.
The HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, The HONORABLE SECRETARY
OF FINANCE, THE PRUDENTIAL CUSTOMS BROKERAGE SERVICES, INC.,
respondents.
G.R. No. L-44674 | February 28, 1983
ESCOLIN, J.

DOCTRINE:
The rule consistently adhered to in this jurisdiction is that mandamus will not lie to control or
review the exercise of discretion of a public officer where the law imposes upon him the right or
duty to exercise judgment in reference to a matter in which he is required to act.

FACTS:
The Puerto Princesa City and Stevedores Union (PPCASU) operated arrastre and stevedoring
services in the Port of Puerto Princesa, Palawan, initially under a temporary permit starting
December 20, 1974. Despite multiple renewals, PPCASU faced challenges such as poor
operations, resource shortages, and financial issues. On March 18, 1976, the Commissioner of
Customs terminated PPCASU's permit and authorized Prudential Brokerage Services Inc. to take
over operations starting March 19, 1976. The decision was based on findings including
PPCASU's lack of capitalization, insufficient equipment, non-compliance with labor laws, failure
to remit to social security, incomplete municipal permits, and absence of a bond for the current
year.

Avenue Arrastre and Stevedoring Corporation, Inc., claiming merger with PPCASU and
succession rights, sought reconsideration of the decision, which was denied. Subsequent appeals
to the Secretary of Finance were also dismissed, leading to the filing of a petition for mandamus.

ISSUE:
Whether an order of the Commissioner of Customs, affirmed by the Secretary of Finance, on a
matter involving the exercise of his discretion may be reviewed and set aside by mandamus.

RULING:
NO. An order of the Commissioner of Customs based on the exercise of his discretion may not
be reviewed nor set aside by mandamus.

MILLAN, Jamie Nicole S.B.

Even conceding that petitioner, as the successor of PPCASU has the privilege of obtaining
renewal of the latter's permit after its expiration, such privilege rests on the sound discretion
on the part of respondent public officials, and refusal to grant continuance of the privilege,
especially upon their findings of PPCASUs gross inefficiency and flagrant violation of the Labor
Laws, cannot be the subject of an action for mandamus.

The rule consistently adhered to in this jurisdiction is that mandamus will not lie to control or
review the exercise of discretion of a public officer where the law imposes upon him the right or
duty to exercise judgment in reference to a matter in which he is required to act.

Moreover, mandamus will not issue in doubtful cases. In the case at bar, petitioner has not shown
a clear and certain right to warrant the grant thereof.

The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

MILLAN, Jamie Nicole S.B.