Civpro Cases on Jurisdiction (Repaired)

8/15/2019 Civpro Cases on Jurisdiction (Repaired)

1/171

THIRD DIVISION

LOURDES L. ERISTINGCOL, - versus -CA and RANDOLPH C. LIMJOCO,

G.R. No. 167702 March 20, 2009

DECISIONNACHURA, J .:

The facts, as narrated by the CA, are simple.

[Petitiner !urdes" E!"#!n$%o& !" an o'n( o) a ("!d(n#!a& &o# !n Udan(#a V!&&a$( #r

$villa%e&', Ma(ati City and cvered by Transfer Certificate f Title ). 20*+*. n the ther hand,

*("+ond(n# Rando&+- L!/o%o, *Lo(no- Tan and *Jn(- V!&("#( '(( #( )o( +("!d(n#

and %a!an o) #( 3oad o) $o(no" 4o 53oad, %on"#%#!on %o!##(( %a!an and

!&&a$( ana$( o) *Udan(#a V!&&a$( A""o%!a#!on In%.- UVAI, ("+(%#!(&8. UVAI !" an

a""o%!a#!on o) o(o'n(" a# Udan(#a V!&&a$(.

[E!"#!n$%o&9"- a%#!on *a$a!n"# UVAI, L!/o%o, Tan and V!&("#(- is funded n the

alle%atins that in cmpliance ith the )atinal /uildin% Cde and after 1A3s apprval f her

buildin% plans and acceptance f the cnstructin bnd and architect3s fee, E!"#!n$%o& "#a#(d

%on"#%#!n$ a o"( on ( &o# '!# 5%on%(#( %ano+8 d!(%#&8 a3o( #( a!n doo and

!$'a8&4 that fr alle%ed !o&a#!on o) !#" Con"#%#!on R&(" and R($&a#!on" 4o 5CRR on

5S(# a%; L!n( vis-a-vis #( %ano+8 (a"((n#, UVAI !+o"(d on ( a +(na o) P


2/171

ppsin% the mtin, E!"#!n$%o& a&&($(d, aon$ o#(", #a# UVAI, L!/o%o, Tan and

V!&("#( d!d no# %o+&8 '!# #( anda#o8 +o!"!on" o) S(%". < and 6, R&( 1@ o) #( 1BB7

R&(" o) C!!& Po%(d( and a( ("#o++(d )o ("#!on!n$ #( /!"d!%#!on o) #( *RTC- a)#(

#(8 o&n#a!&8 a++(a(d #((!n 5and (3a%(d !#" a#o!#8 38 a$((!n$ #o "!$n an

Und(#a;!n$.

n May 20, 6999, E!"#!n$%o& )!&(d an a(nd(d %o+&a!n# 38 4! !+&(ad!n$ Man(

Caona 4o 5Caona and R(n( C!"#o3a& 4o 5C!"#o3a&, 1A3s nely-elected president

and chairman f the bard and nely-desi%nated cnstructin cmmittee chairman, respectively, a"

add!#!ona& d()(ndan#" and #ii' !n%(a"!n$ ( %&a! )o oa& daa$(" a$a!n"# (a% +(#!#!on(

)o P@00,000.00 #o P1,000,000.00.

n May 2+, 6999, E!"#!n$%o& )!&(d a o#!on )o +od%#!on and !n"+(%#!on o) do%(n#",

'!% UVAI, L!/o%o, Tan, V!&("#(, Caona and C!"#o3a& o++o"(d . The mtin su%ht t

cmpel [1A and its fficers" t prduce the do%(n#" "(d 38 UVAI a" 3a"!" )o #( !+o"!#!on

o) #( P


3/171

CA:

issued the herein assailed


4/171


5/171

Con"#%#!on R&(". The cmplaint actually %es int the prper interpretatin and applicatin f

1A3s by-las, specifically its cnstructin rules. ;ssentially, the cnflict beteen the parties arse

as ;ristin%cl, admittedly a member f 1A, n ishes t be e8empt frm the applicatin f the

canpy reBuirement set frth in 1A3s Cnstructin ules. i%nificantly, E!"#!n$%o& do(" no# a""a!

#( (!$# ("#!%#!on o) UVAI9" Con"#%#!on R&(", a" "( a" (ad!&8 %o+&!(d #(('!#.

+(#!"( %anno# 3( o(?(+a"!(d

!no&!n$ a" !# do(" #( (#!%&o" ana&8"!" and %o(%# !n#(+(#a#!on o) a %o+oa#!on9" 38?

&a'" a" '(&& a" #( a++&!%a3&( +o!"!on" o) #( Co+oa#!on Cod( !n od( #o d(#(!n( #(

a&!d!#8 o) VGCCI9" %&a!". T( SEC, #(()o(, #oo; +o+( %o$n!an%( o) #( !n"#an# %a"(.

n star( cntrast, the relatinship beteen the parties in the instant case is ell-established.

Given this admitted relatinship, the privity f cntract beteen 1A and ;ristin%cl is palpable,

despite the latter3s deft phrasel%y f its primary cause f actin as a declaratin f nullity f 1A3s

Cnstructin ules. In "o#, #( %> o) E!"#!n$%o&9" %o+&a!n# !" UVAI9" "++o"(d a3!#a8

!+&((n#a#!on o) !#" %on"#%#!on &(" a$a!n"# E!"#!n$%o&, a (3( #((o).

A" ($ad" #( d()(ndan#"9 "++o"(d (3a%( o) #( RTC9" /!"d!%#!on 38 a++(a!n$

#((a# and nd(#a;!n$ #o d("!"# )o +o!3!#!n$ E!"#!n$%o&9" 'o;(" )o (n#(!n$ #(

!&&a$(, "))!%( !# #o "#a#( #a# #( !no%a#!on o) #( do%#!n( !n Tijam, et al. v. Sibonghanoy, et

al.@*16- !" !#( a &on$ "#(#%.

T( )a%#a& !&!( o3#a!n!n$ !n Tijam and !n #( %a"( a# 3(n% a( 'o&d" a+a#. A"

)ond 38 #( CA, d()(ndan#"9 a++(aan%( 3()o( #( RTC 'a" +"an# #o, and !n %o+&!an%(

'!#, a "3+o(na !""(d 38 #a# %o# !n %onn(%#!on '!# E!"#!n$%o&9" a++&!%a#!on )o a

T(+oa8 R("#a!n!n$ Od( 4TRO. On d()(ndan#"9 "++o"(d a$(((n# #o "!$n #(

Und(#a;!n$ a&&o'!n$ E!"#!n$%o&9" 'o;(", %on#a%#o", and "++&!(" #o (n#( and (>!# #(

4

5


6/171

!&&a$(, #!" #(+oa8 "(##&((n# %anno# 3( (a#(d '!# )&& a%%(+#an%( o) #( RTC9"

a#o!#8, a" 'a# a%#a&&8 #an"+!(d !n Tijam.

In )!n(, 3a"(d on #( a&&($a#!on" %on#a!n(d !n E!"#!n$%o&9" %o+&a!n#, !# !" #( HLUR,

no# #( RTC, '!% a" /!"d!%#!on o( #!" %a"(.

HEREFORE, premises cnsidered, the petitin is DENIED. The


7/171

("+ond(n# Ead(& 'a" no# a +a#8 #o #( a$(((n#, and ( 'a" d(%&a(d !n d()a )o )a!&(#o )!&( !" an"'( #o #( %o+&a!n#.<

P(#!#!on( +("(n#(d !" (!d(n%( ex parte on F(3a8 1, 1BB6. On Ma8 , 1BB6, /d$(n#'a" (nd((d !n !" )ao, and +!a#( ("+ond(n# 'a" od((d #o +(a%()&&8 a%a#( and #no( Lo# No.106@ Cad. @7?D #o +(#!#!on( 4 +a8 +(#!#!on( P2,000 anna& (n#a& )o 1B + #(#!( ( a%a#(" #( &and, and P@,000 a" a##on(8" )((" and #( %o"# o) #( "!# .+ Privaterespndent received a cpy f the decisin n May 2+, 699.

n =une 60, 699, +!a#( ("+ond(n# )!&(d a Mo#!on )o N(' T!a&, a&&($!n$ #a# ( a" 3((no%%+8!n$ #( &and a" a #(nan# o) A#(!o La(n#(, S., "!n%( 1B@ . H( (>+&a!n(d #a# (#n(d o( #( %o+&a!n# and "on" #o La(n#( !n #( on("# 3(&!() #a# a" &and&od, #(&a##( ad a 3(##( !$# #o #( &and and 'a" ("+on"!3&( #o d()(nd an8 ad("( %&a! on !#.Ho'((, #( #!a& %o# d(n!(d #( o#!on )o n(' #!a&.

Meanhile, ;< Cnflict Case ).6029, an ad!n!"#a#!( %a"( 3(#'((n +(#!#!on( anda++&!%an#?%on#("#an#" Ro(o, A#(!o and J8 La(n#(, (a!n(d +(nd!n$ '!# #( O))!%( o) #( R($!ona& D!(%#o o) #( D(+a#(n# o) En!on(n# and Na#a& R("o%(" !n Daao C!#8. ;ventually, it as frarded t the , ;ntry f =ud%ment as made f recrd and a rit f e8ecutin as issuedby the TC n 5ebruary 2>,699>. n March 62,699>, private respndent filed his petitin frcertirari befre the Curt f Appeals.

The Curt f Appeals %ave due curse t the petitin, maintainin% that private respndent is ntestpped frm assailin% the 7urisdictin Hf the TC, /ranch 2> in Tanda%, uri%a del ur, henprivate respndent filed ith said curt his Mtin fr ecnsideratin AndIr Annulment f=ud%ment. The Curt f Appeals decreed as flls:

) TF; !GFT 5 A!! TF; 5;G)G, the Petitin is GA)T;


8/171


9/171

the trial curt, includin% invcatin f its authrity in as(in% fr affirmative relief, effectively bars aparty by estppel frm challen%in% the curtHs 7urisdictin,6@ e nte that estppel has becme aneBuitable defense that is bth substantive and remedial and its successful invcatin can bar a ri%htand nt merely its eBuitable enfrcement.6? Fence, estppel u%ht t be applied ith cautin. 5restppel t apply, the actin %ivin% rise theret must be uneBuivcal and intentinal because, ifmisapplied, estppel may becme a tl f in7ustice.6+

n the present case, private respndent Buestins the 7urisdictin f TC in Tanda%, uri%a del ur,

n le%al %runds. ecall that it as petitiner h filed the cmplaint a%ainst private respndent andt ther parties befre the said curt,6 believin% that the TC had 7urisdictin ver his cmplaint./ut by then, epublic Act >966> amendin% /P 629 had becme effective, such that 7urisdictinalready beln%s nt t the TC but t the MTC pursuant t said amendment. Private respndent, anunschled farmer, in the mista(en belief that since he as merely a tenant f the late Artemi!aurente r., his landlrd, %ave the summns t a Fiplit !aurente, ne f the survivin% heirs f

Artemi r., h did nt d anythin% abut the summns. 5r failure t anser the cmplaint, privaterespndent as declared in default. Fe then filed a Mtin fr )e Trial in the same curt ande8plained that he defaulted because f his belief that the suit u%ht t be ansered by his landlrd. nthat mtin he stated that he had by then the evidence t prve that he had a better ri%ht thanpetitiner ver the land because f his ln%, cntinuus and uninterrupted pssessin as bona-fide

tenant-lessee f the land.6*/ut his mtin as denied. Fe tried an alternative recurse. Fe filedbefre the TC a Mtin fr elief frm =ud%ment. A%ain, the same curt denied his mtin, hencehe mved fr recnsideratin f the denial. n his Mtin fr ecnsideratin, he raised fr the firsttime the TCHs lac( f 7urisdictin. This mtin as a%ain denied. )te that private respndent raisedthe issue f lac( f 7urisdictin, nt hen the case as already n appeal, but hen the case, as stillbefre the TC that ruled him in default, denied his mtin fr ne trial as ell as fr relief frm

7ud%ment, and denied li(eise his t mtins fr recnsideratin. After the TC still refused trecnsider the denial f private respndentHs mtin fr relief frm 7ud%ment, it ent n t issue therder fr entry f 7ud%ment and a rit f e8ecutin.

nder these circumstances, e culd nt fault the Curt f Appeals in verrulin% the TC and in

hldin% that private respndent as nt estpped frm Buestinin% the 7urisdictin f the re%inal trialcurt. The fundamental rule is that, the lac( f 7urisdictin f the curt ver an actin cannt beaived by the parties, r even cured by their silence, acBuiescence r even by their e8presscnsent.69 5urther, a party may assail the 7urisdictin f the curt ver the actin at any sta%e f theprceedin%s and even n appeal.20 The appellate curt did nt err in sayin% that the TC shuld havedeclared itself barren f 7urisdictin ver the actin. ;ven if private respndent actively participated inthe prceedin%s befre said curt, the dctrine f estppel cannt still be prperly inv(ed a%ainsthim because the Buestin f lac( f 7urisdictin may be raised at anytime and at any sta%e f theactin.26 Precedents tell us that as a %eneral rule, the 7urisdictin f a curt is nt a Buestin facBuiescence as a matter f fact, but an issue f cnferment as a matter f la.22 Als, neither aiver nr estppel shall apply t cnfer 7urisdictin upn a curt, barrin% hi%hly meritrius and e8ceptinal

circumstances.2@

The Curt f Appeals fund supprt fr its rulin% in ur decisin in Javier vs. Courtof Appeals, thus:

8 8 8 The pint simply is that hen a party cmmits errr in filin% his suit r prceedin% in acurt that lac(s 7urisdictin t ta(e c%niance f the same, such act may nt at nce bedeemed sufficient basis f estppel. t culd have been the result f an hnest mista(e, r fdiver%ent interpretatins f dubtful le%al prvisins. I) an8 )a !" #o 3( !+#(d #o a +a#8#a;!n$ "% %o"( o) a%#!on, +a# o) #( 3&a( "o&d 3( +&a%(d on #( %o# '!%"a&& (n#(#a!n #( "!#, #((38 &&&!n$ #( +a#!(" !n#o 3(&!(!n$ #a# #(8 +"(d #(!((d!(" !n #( %o(%# )o. nder the rules, it is the duty f the curt t dismiss an actinHhenever it appears that the curt has n 7urisdictin ver the sub7ect matter.H #ec. 2, ule 9,

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_131282_2002.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_131282_2002.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_131282_2002.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_131282_2002.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_131282_2002.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_131282_2002.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_131282_2002.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_131282_2002.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_131282_2002.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_131282_2002.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_131282_2002.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_131282_2002.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_131282_2002.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_131282_2002.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_131282_2002.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_131282_2002.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_131282_2002.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_131282_2002.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_131282_2002.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_131282_2002.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_131282_2002.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/jan2002/gr_131282_2002.html#fnt23


10/171

ules f Curt' huld the Curt render a 7ud%ment ithut 7urisdictin, such 7ud%ment may beimpeached r annulled fr lac( f 7urisdictin #ec. @0, ule 6@2, bid', ithin ten #60' yearsfrm the finality f the same. [;mphasis urs."2?

ndeed, J...the trial curt as duty-bund t ta(e 7udicial ntice f the parameters f its 7urisdictin andits failure t d s, ma(es its decisin a HlalessH thin%.J2+

ince a decisin f a curt ithut 7urisdictin is null and vid, it culd l%ically never becme final

and e8ecutry, hence appeal therefrm by rit f errr uld be ut f the Buestin. esrt by privaterespndent t a petitin fr certirari befre the Curt f Appeals as in rder .

n hldin% that estppel did nt prevent private respndent frm Buestinin% the TCHs 7urisdictin,the appellate curt reiterated the dctrine that estppel must be applied nly in e8ceptinal cases, asits misapplicatin culd result in a miscarria%e f 7ustice. Fere, e find that petitiner, h claimsnership f a parcel f land, filed his cmplaint befre a curt ithut apprpriate 7urisdictin.


11/171

TF< 0, petitiner-spuses purchased a parcel f land frmprivate respndent !uc(y Fmes, nc., situated in lil and cntainin% an area f 2?0 sBuare meters.aid lt as specifically denminated as !t ). 69 under Transfer Certificate f Title #TCT' ).2*2+? and as mrt%a%ed t the cial ecurity ystem #' as security fr their husin% lan.Petitiners then started the cnstructin f their huse, nt n !t ). 69 but n !t ). 6*, asprivate respndent mista(enly identified !t ). 6* as !t ). 69. pn realiin% its errr, private

6


12/171

respndent, thru%h its %eneral mana%er, infrmed petitiners f such mista(e but the latter ffered tbuy !t ). 6* in rder t iden their premises. Thus, petitiners cntinued ith the cnstructin ftheir huse. Fever, petitiners defaulted in the payment f their husin% lan frm .CnseBuently, !t ). 69 as freclsed by and petitiners3 certificate f title as cancelled anda ne ne as issued in the name f . After !t ). 69 as freclsed, petitiners ffered tsap !t )s. 6* and 69 and demanded frm private respndent that their cntract f sale berefrmed and anther deed f sale be e8ecuted ith respect t !t ). 6*, cnsiderin% that theirhuse as built therein. Fever, private respndent refused. This prmpted petitiners t file, n

=une 6@, 699, an actin fr refrmatin f cntract and dama%es ith the e%inal Trial Curt flil City, /ranch @, hich as dc(eted as Civil Case ). 6>66+.

n =anuary 6+, 699*, the trial curt>[2" rendered its decisin dismissin% the cmplaint fr lac( f meritand rderin% herein petitiners t pay private respndent the amunt f P60,000 as mral dama%esand anther P60,000 as attrney3s fees. The pertinent cnclusin f the trial curt reads as flls:

$Aare f such fact, the plaintiff nnetheless cntinued t stay in the premises f !t 6* n theprpsal that he uld als buy the same. Plaintiff hever failed t buy !t 6* and li(eisedefaulted in the payment f his lan ith the invlvin% !t 69. CnseBuently !t 69 asfreclsed and sld at public auctin. Thereafter TCT ). T-299+0 as cancelled and in lieu theref

TCT ). T-*62 #;8h. 93' as issued in favr f . This bein% the situatin btainin%, therefrmatin f instruments, even if alled, r the sappin% f !t 6* and !t 69 as earlier prpsedby the plaintiff, is n ln%er feasible cnsiderin% that plaintiff is n ln%er the ner f !t 69,therise, defendant ill be lsin% !t 6* ithut any substitute therefre #sic'. pn the ther hand,plaintiff ill be un7ustly enrichin% himself havin% in its favr bth !t 69 hich as earlier mrt%a%edby him and subseBuently freclsed by , as ell as !t 6* here his huse is presently standin%.

$The l%ic and cmmn sense f the situatin lean heavily in favr f the defendant. t is evident thathat plaintiff had bu%ht frm the defendant is !t 69 cvered by TCT ). 2*2+? hich parcel f landhas been prperly indicated in the instruments and nt !t 6* as claimed by the plaintiff. Thecntracts bein% clear and unmista(able, they reflect the true intentin f the parties, besides the

plaintiff failed t assail the cntracts n mutual mista(e, hence the same need n ln%er berefrmed.&*[@"

n =une 22, 699*, a rit f e8ecutin as issued by the trial curt. Thus, n eptember 6>, 699*,petitiners filed an ur%ent mtin t recall rit f e8ecutin, alle%in% that the curt a &uo had n

7urisdictin t try the case as it as vested in the Fusin% and !and se e%ulatry /ard #F!/'pursuant t P< 9+> #The ubdivisin and Cndminium /uyers Prtective


13/171

Their subseBuent mtin fr recnsideratin havin% been denied, petitiners filed this instant petitin,cntendin% that the Curt f Appeals erred in dismissin% the petitin by applyin% the principle festppel, even if the e%inal Trial Curt, /ranch @ f lil City had n 7urisdictin t decide CivilCase ). 6>66+.

At the utset, it shuld be stressed that petitiners are see(in% frm us the annulment f a trial curt 7ud%ment based n lac( f 7urisdictin. /ecause it is nt an appeal, the crrectness f the 7ud%mentis nt in issue here. Accrdin%ly, there is n need t delve int the prpriety f the decisin rendered

by the trial curt.

Petitiners claim that the recent decisins f this Curt have already abandned the dctrine laiddn in 'i(a) vs. *ibonghano+ .60[+" De d nt a%ree. n cuntless decisins, this Curt hascnsistently held that, hile an rder r decisin rendered ithut 7urisdictin is a ttal nullity and maybe assailed at any sta%e, active participatin in the prceedin%s in the curt hich rendered the rderr decisin ill bar such party frm attac(in% its 7urisdictin. As e held in the leadin% case f 'i(a)vs. *ibonghano+ :66["

$A party may be estpped r barred frm raisin% a Buestin in different ays and fr different reasns.Thus e spea( f estppel in pais, r estppel by deed r by recrd, and f estppel by laches.

8 8 8

$t has been held that a party cannt inv(e the 7urisdictin f a curt t secure affirmative reliefa%ainst his ppnent and, after btainin% r failin% t btain such relief, repudiate, r Buestin thatsame 7urisdictin 8 8 8 8 [T"he Buestin hether the curt had 7urisdictin either f the sub7ect matterf the actin r f the parties as nt imprtant in such cases because the party is barred frm suchcnduct not because the (udg)ent or order of the court is valid and conclusive as an ad(udication, but for the reason that such a practice can not be tolerated QQ bviusly fr reasns f public plicy.&

Ti7am has been reiterated in many succeedin% cases. Thus, in rsa vs. Curt f Appeals462[>" An%

Pin% vs. Curt f Appeals46@[*" alva vs. Curt f Appeals46?[9" )atinal teel Crpratin vs. Curt f Appeals46+[60" Prvince f /ulacan vs. Curt f Appeals46[66" P)C hippin% and Transprt

10

11

12

13

14

15

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/..%5C..%5C2000%5Capr2000%5C111080.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/..%5C..%5C1999%5Cjul99%5C126947.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/..%5C..%5C1999%5Cmar99%5C132250.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/..%5C..%5C1999%5Cfeb99%5C123215.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/..%5C..%5C1999%5Cfeb99%5C123215.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/..%5C..%5C1998%5Cnov%201998%5C126232.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/..%5C..%5C1998%5Coct%201998%5C107518.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/..%5C..%5C2000%5Capr2000%5C111080.htmlhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/..%5C..%5C1999%5Cjul99%5C126947.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/..%5C..%5C1999%5Cmar99%5C132250.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/..%5C..%5C1999%5Cfeb99%5C123215.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/..%5C..%5C1999%5Cfeb99%5C123215.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/..%5C..%5C1998%5Cnov%201998%5C126232.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/..%5C..%5C1998%5Coct%201998%5C107518.htm


14/171

Crpratin vs. Curt f Appeals,6>[62" this Curt affirmed the rule that a party3s active participatin inall sta%es f the case befre the trial curt, hich includes inv(in% the curt3s authrity t %rantaffirmative relief, effectively estps such party frm later challen%in% that same curt3s 7urisdictin.

n the case at bar, it as petitiners themselves h inv(ed the 7urisdictin f the curt a Bu byinstitutin% an actin fr refrmatin f cntract a%ainst private respndents. t appears that, in theprceedin%s befre the trial curt, petitiners vi%rusly asserted their cause frm start t finish. )teven nce did petitiners ever raise the issue f the curt3s 7urisdictin durin% the entire prceedin%s

hich lasted fr t years. t as nly after the trial curt rendered its decisin and issued a rit fe8ecutin a%ainst them in 699* did petitiners first raise the issue f 7urisdictin R and it as nlybecause said decisin as unfavrable t them. Petitiners thus effectively aived their ri%ht tBuestin the curt3s 7urisdictin ver the case they themselves filed.

Petitiners shuld bear the cnseBuence f their act. They cannt be alled t prfit frm theirmissin t the dama%e and pre7udice f the private respndent. This Curt frns upn theundesirable practice f a party submittin% his case fr decisin and then acceptin% the 7ud%ment butnly if favrable, and attac(in% it fr lac( f 7urisdictin if nt.6*[6@"

Public plicy dictates that this Curt must strn%ly cndemn any duble-dealin% by parties h are

dispsed t trifle ith the curts by deliberately ta(in% incnsistent psitins, in utter disre%ard f theelementary principles f 7ustice and %d faith.69[6?" There is n denyin% that, in this case, petitinersnever raised the issue f 7urisdictin thru%hut the entire prceedin%s in the trial curt. nstead, theyvluntarily and illin%ly submitted themselves t the 7urisdictin f said curt. t is n t late in theday fr them t repudiate the 7urisdictin they ere inv(in% all aln%.

HEREFORE, the petitin fr revie is hereby


15/171


16/171

n March 69, 6996, the TC issued an rder preventively suspendin% the petitiner frm the serviceunder Presidential 6, as amended by P.. Dhen apprised f the said rder,the General FeadBuarters f the P)P issued n ctber , 6992 pecial rder ). 96, preventivelysuspendin% the petitiner frm the service until the case as terminated.26[2"

The petitiner as arrested by virtue f a arrant issued by the TC, hile accused /mbitaremained at lar%e. The petitiner psted bail and as %ranted temprary liberty.

Dhen arrai%ned n April 9, 6996,22[@" the petitiner, assisted by cunsel, pleaded nt %uilty t theffense char%ed. Thereafter, n +, his suspensin shuld last fr nly 90days, and, havin% served the same, he shuld n be reinstated. n eptember 2@, 699@,2+[" theP)P e%in 1 FeadBuarters rte =ud%e " Trial thereafter prceeded, and the prsecutin rested itscase. The petitiner cmmenced the presentatin f his evidence. n =uly 20, 699?, he filed aMtin t [*" the case. Citin% epublic of the /hilippines v. Asuncion, et al.,2*[9" he ar%ued

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


17/171

that since he cmmitted the crime in the perfrmance f his duties, the andi%anbayan had e8clusive 7urisdictin ver the case.

n ctber 2*, 699?, the TC issued an rder 29[60" denyin% the mtin t dismiss. t, hever,rdered the cnduct f a preliminary hearin% t determine hether r nt the crime char%ed ascmmitted by the petitiner in relatin t his ffice as a member f the P)P.

n the preliminary hearin%, the prsecutin manifested that it as n ln%er presentin% any evidence

in cnnectin ith the petitiner3s mtin. t reasned that it had already rested its case, and that itsevidence shed that the petitiner did nt cmmit the ffense char%ed in cnnectin ith theperfrmance f his duties as a member f the Philippine Cnstabulary. Accrdin% t the prsecutin,they ere able t sh the fllin% facts: #a' the petitiner as nt earin% his unifrm durin% theincident4 #b' the ffense as cmmitted 7ust after midni%ht4 #c' the petitiner as drun( hen thecrime as cmmitted4 #d' the petitiner as in the cmpany f civilians4 and, #e' the ffense ascmmitted in a beerhuse called $*a arong Caf Bar and estaurant .&@0[66"

5r his part, the petitiner testified that at abut 60:00 p.m. n March 6+, 6990, he as at the *aarong Caf Bar and estaurant at /arlin t., )a%a City, t cnduct surveillance n alle%ed dru%traffic(in%, pursuant t Missin rder ). 0@-0? issued by Plice uperintendent uf . Pulid. The

petitiner adduced in evidence the srn statements f /en7amin Cari and bert 5a7ard hcrrbrated his testimny that he as n a surveillance missin n the afrestated date. @6[62"

n =uly @6, 699+, the trial curt issued an rder declarin% that the petitiner cmmitted the crimechar%ed hile nt in the perfrmance f his fficial functin. The trial curt added that upn theenactment f .A. ). >9>+,@2[6@" the issue had becme mt and academic. The amendatry latransferred the 7urisdictin ver the ffense char%ed frm the andi%anbayan t the TC since thepetitiner did nt have a salary %rade f $2>& as prvided fr in r by ectin ?#a'#6', #@' theref. Thetrial curt nevertheless rdered the prsecutin t amend the nfrmatin pursuant t the rulin% inepublic v. Asuncion@@[6?" and .A. ). >9>+. The amendment cnsisted in the inclusin therein fan alle%atin that the ffense char%ed as nt cmmitted by the petitiner in the perfrmance f his

dutiesIfunctins, nr in relatin t his ffice.

29

30

31

32

33


18/171


19/171

curt f ri%in, TC f )a%a City, /ranch 26. t reasned that under P.9>+,@>[6*" the TC retained 7urisdictin ver the case, cnsiderin% that the petitiner had asalary %rade f $2@.& 5urthermre, the prsecutin had already rested its case and the petitiner hadcmmenced presentin% his evidence in the TC4 fllin% the rule n cntinuity f 7urisdictin, thelatter curt shuld cntinue ith the case and render 7ud%ment therein after trial.

pn the remand f the recrds, the TC set the case fr trial n May @, 699, fr the petitiner tcntinue presentin% his evidence. nstead f adducin% his evidence, the petitiner filed a petitin fr

certirari, assailin% the rder f the Presidin% =ustice f the andi%anbayan remandin% the recrds f the case t the TC.

The threshld issue fr reslutin is hether r nt the Presidin% =ustice f the andi%anbayancmmitted a %rave abuse f his discretin amuntin% t e8cess r lac( f 7urisdictin in rderin% theremand f the case t the TC.

The petitiner cntends that hen the amended infrmatin as filed ith the TC n 5ebruary ,6996, P.


20/171

nder ectin ?#a' f P.


21/171

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petitin is


22/171

nfrmatin.??[2" t is not enough to )erel+ allege in the nfor)ation that the cri)e charged !asco))itted b+ the offender in relation to his office because that !ould be a conclusion of la!.?+[@"

t bears stressin% that, in the case at bar, the facts shin% the intimate relatin beteen thepetitinerHs ffice and the dischar%e f his duties ere nt alle%ed in the amended nfrmatin.Fence, hen the TC rdered the re-amendment f the nfrmatin t include an alle%atin that thepetitiner cmmitted the crime in relatin t his ffice n )vember 2?, 699+, such curt had

7urisdictin ver the ffense char%ed. The trial curt erred hen it rdered the elevatin f the recrds

t the andi%anbayan because epublic Act #.A.' ). >9>+, amendin% P.


23/171

epublic f the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN ANC

G.R. No. 16BB1< A+!& 1, 200

ASIAS EMERGING DRAGON CORPORATION, petitiner,vs.DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, SECRETAR LEANDRO R.MENDOA and MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORIT, respndents.

8 ----------------------------------------- 8

G.R. No. 17


24/171

me time in 699@, si8 business leaders cnsistin% f =hn G(n%ei, Andre Gtianun,Fenry y, r., !uci Tan, Ger%e Ty and Alfns Kuchen%c met ith then President 5idel 1.ams t e8plre the pssibility f investin% in the cnstructin and peratin f a neinternatinal airprt terminal. T si%nify their cmmitment t pursue the pr7ect, they frmed the

AsiaHs ;mer%in% , 699+, then


25/171

i. 5irst + years +.0W

ii. )e8t 60 years >.+W

iii. )e8t 60 years 60.0W

b. The amunt f the fi8ed Annual Guaranteed Payment shall be sub7ect f the pricechallen%e. Prpnent may ffer an Annual Guaranteed Payment hich need nt be feBual amunt, but payment f hich shall start upn site pssessin.

c. The pr7ect prpnent must have adeBuate capability t sustain the financin%reBuirement fr the detailed en%ineerin%, desi%n, cnstructin, andIr peratin andmaintenance phases f the pr7ect as the case may be. 5r purpses f pre-Bualificatin, this capability shall be measured in terms f:

i. Prf f the availability f the pr7ect prpnent andIr the cnsrtium tprvide the minimum amunt f eBuity fr the pr7ect4 and

ii. a letter testimnial frm reputable ban(s attestin% that the pr7ect prpnentandIr the members f the cnsrtium are ban(in% ith them, that the pr7ect

prpnent andIr the members are f %d financial standin%, and haveadeBuate resurces.

d. The basis fr the preBualificatin shall be the prpnentHs cmpliance ith theminimum technical and financial reBuirements prvided in the /id


26/171


27/171


28/171

n =uly 62, 699>, the Gvernment, thru%h then Cncessin A%reement'. 8 8 8.

n )vember 2, 699*, the Gvernment and PATC si%ned an Amended and estatedCncessin A%reement #ACA'. 8 8 8.

ubseBuently, the Gvernment and PATC si%ned three upplements t the ACA. The 5irstupplement as si%ned n Au%ust 2>, 69994 the ecnd upplement n eptember ?, 20004and the Third upplement n =une 22, 2006 #cllectively, upplements'.

8 8 8 8

Meanhile, the MAA hich is char%ed ith the maintenance and peratin f the )AATerminals and , had e8istin% cncessin cntracts ith varius service prviders t fferinternatinal airline airprt services, such as in-fli%ht caterin%, passen%er handlin%, ramp and%rund supprt, aircraft maintenance and prvisins, car% handlin% and arehusin%, andther services, t several internatinal airlines at the )AA. 8 8 8.

n eptember 6>, 2002, the r(ers f the internatinal airline service prviders, claimin% thatthey stand t lse their emplyment upn the implementatin f the Buestined a%reements,filed befre this Curt a petitin fr prhibitin t en7in the enfrcement f said a%reements.

n ctber 6+, 2002, the service prviders, 7inin% the cause f the petitinin% r(ers, filed amtin fr interventin and a petitin-in-interventin.

n ctber 2?, 2002, Cn%ressmen alacnib /aterina, Clavel Martine and Cnstantin=araula filed a similar petitin ith this Curt.

n )vember , 2002, several emplyees f the MAA li(eise filed a petitin assailin% thele%ality f the varius a%reements.

n


29/171

n sum, this Curt rules that in vie f the absence f the reBuisite financial capacity f thePaircar% Cnsrtium, predecessr f respndent PATC, the aard by the P/AC f thecntract fr the cnstructin, peratin and maintenance f the )AA PT is null and vid.5urther, cnsiderin% that the 699> Cncessin A%reement cntains material and substantialamendments, hich amendments had the effect f cnvertin% the 699> Cncessin

A%reement int an entirely different a%reement frm the cntract bidded upn, the 699>Cncessin A%reement is similarly null and vid fr bein% cntrary t public plicy. Theprvisins under ectins ?.0?#b' and #c' in relatin t ectin 6.0 f the 699> Cncessin

A%reement and ectin ?.0?#c' in relatin t ectin 6.0 f the ACA, hich cnstitute adirect %vernment %uarantee e8pressly prhibited by, amn% thers, the /T !a and itsmplementin% ules and e%ulatins are als null and vid. The upplements, bein%accessry cntracts t the ACA, are li(eise null and vid.

Fence, the fallo f the CurtHs Cncessin A%reement, the Amended and estated Cncessin A%reement and the upplements theret are set aside fr bein% null and vid.>

n a eslutin* dated 26 =anuary 200?, the Curt denied ith finality the Mtins fr

ecnsideratin f its + May 200@


30/171

The case as raffled t /ranch 66> f the Pasay City TC, presided by respndent 7ud%e Fn.Fenric( 5. Gin%yn #Fn. Gin%yn'. n the same day that the Co)plaint as filed, the TCissued an


31/171

)AA @ Cmple8. That same day, the Gvernment filed a =otion for nhibition f Fn.Gin%yn.

The TC heard the ?rgent =otion for econsideration and =otion for nhibition n 60 =anuary200+. n the same day, it denied these mtins in an


32/171

#' There as n %rave abuse f discretin attendin% the TC shall apply insfar as they are nt incnsistent ith ep. Act ).*9>?, its mplementin% ules, r the rulin%s f the Curt in Agan.

#>' The Gvernment shall pay the 7ust cmpensatin fi8ed in the decisin f the trial curt tPATC immediately upn the finality f the said decisin.

#*' There is n basis fr the Curt t direct the inhibitin f Fn. Gin%yn.

All tld, the Curt finds n %rave abuse f discretin n the part f the TC t arrant thenullificatin f the Buestined rders. )netheless, prtins f these rders shuld be mdifiedt cnfrm ith la and the prnuncements made by the Curt herein. 62

The decretal prtin f the CurtHs is hereby directed, ithin si8ty #0' days frm finality f this


33/171

the )AA @. Fever, the , uldpermit the Gvernment t acBuire pssessin ver the )AA @ and implement its peratin

ithut havin% t pay PATC a sin%le centav, a situatin that is bviusly unfair. Dhateveranimsity the Gvernment may have tards PATC des nt acBuit it frm settlin% itsbli%atins t the latter, particularly thse hich had already been previusly affirmed by thisCurt.6?

The Curt, in the same eslutin, denied all the three mtins fr interventin f Asa(ihsanCrpratin, Ta(ena(a Crpratin, and Cn%ressman /aterina, and ruled as flls:

De n turn t the three #@' mtins fr interventin all f hich ere filed after theprmul%atin f the CurtHs


34/171

Asia/s 0merging 1ragon Corporation v. 1epartment o2 Transportation an) Commnicationsan) 3anila International Airport Athority !.". #o. $*$'+

/an(in% n this CurtHs declaratin in Agan that the aard f the )AA PT Pr7ect t PATC isnull and vid, AsiaHs ;mer%in%


35/171

and adeBuate remedy in the rdinary curse f la, the persn a%%rieved thereby may file averified petitin in the prper curt, alle%in% the facts ith certainty and prayin% that 7ud%mentbe rendered cmmandin% the respndent, immediately r sme ther time t be specified bythe curt, t d the act reBuired t be dne t prtect the ri%hts f the petitiner, and t pay thedama%es sustained by the petitiner by reasn f the rn%ful acts f the respndent.

t is ell-established in ur 7urisprudence that nly specific le%al ri%hts are enfrceable by )anda)us,that the ri%ht su%ht t be enfrced must be certain and clear, and that the rit ill nt issue in cases

here the ri%ht is dubtful. =ust as fundamental is the principle %vernin% the issuance f )anda)us that the duties t be perfrmed must be such as are clearly and peremptrily en7ined by la r byreasn f fficial statin.6*

A rule ln% familiar is that )anda)us never issues in dubtful cases. t reBuires a shin% f acmplete and clear le%al ri%ht in the petitiner t the perfrmance f ministerial acts. n varyin%lan%ua%e, the principle eched and reeched is that le%al ri%hts may be enfrced by )anda)us nlyif thse ri%hts are ell-defined, clear and certain. therise, the )anda)us petitin must bedismissed.69

The ri%ht that A;,20 as amended by epublic Act ). >>6*, n unslicited prpsals, hich prvides Q

;C. ?-A. ?nsolicited proposals. Q nslicited prpsals fr pr7ects may be accepted by any%vernment a%ency r lcal %vernment unit n a ne%tiated basis: Prvided, That, all thefllin% cnditins are met: #6' such pr7ects invlve a ne cncept r technl%y andIr arent part f the list f pririty pr7ects, #2' n direct %vernment %uarantee, subsidy r eBuity isreBuired, and #@' the %vernment a%ency r lcal %vernment unit has invited by publicatin,fr three #@' cnsecutive ee(s, in a nespaper f %eneral circulatin, cmparative rcmpetitive prpsals and n ther prpsal is received fr a perid f si8ty #0' r(in% days:Prvided, further, That in the event anther prpnent submits a ler price prpsal, theri%inal prpnent shall have the ri%ht t match the price ithin thirty #@0' r(in% days.

n furtherance f the afre-Buted prvisin, the mplementin% ules and e%ulatins #' fepublic Act ). 9+>, as amended by epublic Act ). >>6*, devted the entire ule 60 tnslicited Prpsals, pertinent prtins f hich are reprduced bel Q

ec. 60.6. eBuisites fr nslicited Prpsals. Q Any A%encyI!G may accept unslicitedprpsals n a ne%tiated basis prvided that all the fllin% cnditins are met:

a. the pr7ect invlves a ne cncept r technl%y andIr is nt part f the list f priritypr7ects4

b. n direct %vernment %uarantee, subsidy r eBuity is reBuired4 and

c. the A%encyI!G cncerned has invited by publicatin, fr three #@' cnsecutive ee(s, in anespaper f %eneral circulatin, cmparative r cmpetitive prpsals and n ther prpsalis received fr a perid f si8ty #0' r(in% days. n the event that anther pr7ect prpnentsubmits a price prpsal ler than that submitted by the ri%inal prpnent, the latter shallhave the ri%ht t match said price prpsal ithin thirty #@0' r(in% days. huld the ri%inalprpnent fail t match the ler price prpsal submitted ithin the specified perid, thecntract shall be aarded t the tenderer f the lest price. n the ther hand, if the ri%inalpr7ect prpnent matches the submitted lest price ithin the specified perid, he shall beimmediately be aarded the pr7ect.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_169914_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_169914_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_169914_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_169914_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_169914_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_169914_2008.html#fnt20


36/171

8 8 8 8

ec. 60.. ;valuatin f nslicited Prpsals. Q The A%encyI!G is tas(ed ith the initialevaluatin f the prpsal. The A%encyI!G shall: 6' appraise the merits f the pr7ect4 2'evaluate the Bualificatin f the prpnent4 and @' assess the apprpriateness f thecntractual arran%ement and reasnableness f the ris( allcatin. The A%encyI!G is %ivensi8ty #0' days t evaluate the prpsal frm the date f submissin f the cmplete prpsal.Dithin this 0-day perid, the A%encyI!G, shall advise the prpnent in ritin% hether it

accepts r re7ects the prpsal. A%%(+#an%( (an" %o!#(n# o) #( A$(n%8KLGU #o+"( #( +o/(%# and (%o$n!#!on o) #( +o+on(n# a" #( o!$!na& +o+on(n#. A# #!"+o!n#, #( A$(n%8KLGU '!&& no &on$( (n#(#a!n o#( "!!&a +o+o"a&" n#!& #("o&!%!#a#!on o) %o+aa#!( +o+o"a&". The implementatin f the pr7ect, hever, is stillcntin%ent primarily n the apprval f the apprpriate apprvin% authrities cnsistent ithectin 2.> f these , the a%reement beteen the ri%inal prpnent and the A%encyI!Gf the cntract terms, and the apprval f the cntract by the [nvestment CrdinatinCmmittee #CC'" r !cal an%%unian.

8 8 8 8

ec. 60.9. )e%tiatin Dith the ri%inal Prpnent. Q I(d!a#(&8 a)#( ICCKLo%a&San$$n!an" %&(aan%( o) #( +o/(%#, #( A$(n%8KLGU "a&& +o%((d '!# #( !n?d(+#n($o#!a#!on o) #( +o/(%# "%o+(, !+&((n#a#!on aan$((n#" and %on%(""!ona$(((n#, a&& o) '!% '!&& 3( "(d !n #( T(" o) R()((n%( )o #( "o&!%!#a#!on o)%o+aa#!( +o+o"a&". The A%encyI!G and the prpnent are %iven ninety #90' days upnreceipt f CCHs apprval f the pr7ect t cnclude ne%tiatins. The A%encyI!G and theri%inal prpnent shall ne%tiate in %d faith. Ho'((, "o&d #(( 3( n("o&a3&(d!))((n%(" d!n$ #( n($o#!a#!on", #( A$(n%8KLGU "a&& a( #( o+#!on #o (/(%# #(+o+o"a& and 3!d o# #( +o/(%#. On #( o#( and, !) #( n($o#!a#!on !" "%%("")&&8%on%&d(d, #( o!$!na& +o+on(n# "a&& #(n 3( (!(d #o ()oa# and ("3!# !#"+o+o"a& !n a%%odan%( '!# #( (!((n#" o) #( T(" o) R()((n%( #o )a%!&!#a#(

%o+a!"on '!# #( %o+aa#!( +o+o"a&". T( A$(n%8KLGU "a&& a&!da#( #(()oa##(d +o+o"a& !) !# ((#" #( (!((n#" o) #( TOR +!o #o #( !""an%( o) #(!n!#a#!on )o %o+aa#!( +o+o"a&".

8 8 8 8

ec. 60.66. nvitatin fr Cmparative Prpsals. The A%encyI!G shall publish the invitatinfr cmparative r cmpetitive prpsals nly after CCI!cal an%%unian issues a nb7ectin clearance f the draft cntract. The invitatin fr cmparative r cmpetitiveprpsals shuld be published at least nce every ee( fr three #@' ee(s in at least ne #6'nespaper f %eneral circulatin. t shall indicate the time, hich shuld nt be earlier than the

last date f publicatin, and place here tenderIbiddin% dcuments culd be btained. t shallli(eise e8plicitly specify a time f si8ty #0' r(in% days rec(ned frm the date f issuancef the tenderIbiddin% dcuments upn hich prpsals shall be received. /eynd saiddeadline, n prpsals shall be accepted. A pre-bid cnference shall be cnducted ten #60'r(in% days after the issuance f the tenderIbiddin% dcuments.

ec. 60.62. Pstin% f /id /nd by ri%inal Prpnent. Q The ri%inal prpnent shall bereBuired at the date f the first date f the publicatin f the invitatin fr cmparativeprpsals t "3!# a 3!d 3ond (a& #o #( aon# and !n #( )o (!(d o) #(%a&&(n$(".


37/171

ec. 60.6@. imultaneus Lualificatin f the ri%inal Prpnent. Q The A%encyI!G shallBualify the ri%inal prpnent based n the prvisins f ule + heref, ithin thirty #@0' daysfrm start f ne%tiatin. 5r cnsistency, the evaluatin criteria used fr Bualifyin% the ri%inalprpnent shuld be the same criteria used fr Bualifyin% the ri%inal prpnent shuld be thecriteria used in the Terms f eference fr the challen%ers.

8 8 8 8

ec. 60.6.


38/171

Cnsistent in bth the statutes and the is the reBuirement that invitatins be published frcmparative r cmpetitive prpsals. Therefre, it is mandatry that a public biddin% be held befrethe aardin% f the pr7ect. The ne%tiatins beteen the a%encyI!G and the ri%inal prpnent, asprvided in ectin 60.9 f the , is fr the sle purpse f cmin% up ith draft a%reements, hichshall be used in the Terms f eference #T' fr the slicitatin f cmparative prpsals. ;ven atthis pint, there is n definite cmmitment made t the ri%inal prpnent as t the aardin% f thepr7ect. n fact, the same prvisin even %ives the cncerned a%encyI!G, in case funreslvable differences durin% the ne%tiatins, the ptin t re7ect the ri%inal prpnentHs prpsal

and 7ust bid ut the pr7ect.

Generally, in the curse f prcessin% an unslicited prpsal, the ri%inal prpnent is treated inmuch the same ay as all ther prspective bidders fr the prpsed infrastructure pr7ect. t isreBuired t refrmat and resubmit its prpsal in accrdance ith the reBuirements f the T. 22 tmust submit a bid bnd eBual t the amunt and in the frm reBuired f the challen%ers. 2@ tsBualificatin shall be evaluated by the cncerned a%encyI!G, usin% evaluatin criteria in accrdanceith ule +2? f the , and hich shall be the same criteria t be used in the T fr thechallen%ers.2+ These reBuirements ensure that the public biddin% under ule 60 f n nslicitedPrpsals still remain in accrd ith the three principles in public biddin%, hich are: the ffer t thepublic, an pprtunity fr cmpetitin, and a basis fr e8act cmparisn f bids. 2

The special ri%hts r privile%es f an ri%inal prpnent thus cme int play nly hen there are ther prpsals submitted durin% the public biddin% f the infrastructure pr7ect. As can be %leaned frm theplain lan%ua%e f the statutes and the , the ri%inal prpnent has: #6' the ri%ht t match thelest r mst advanta%eus prpsal ithin @0 r(in% days frm ntice theref, and #2' in theevent that the ri%inal prpnent is able t match the lest r mst advanta%eus prpsalsubmitted, then it has the ri%ht t be aarded the pr7ect. The secnd ri%ht r privile%e is cntin%entupn the actual e8ercise by the ri%inal prpnent f the first ri%ht r privile%e. /efre the pr7ectculd be aarded t the ri%inal prpnent, he must have been able t match the lest r mstadvanta%eus prpsal ithin the prescribed perid. Fence, hen the ri%inal prpnent is able ttimely match the lest r mst advanta%eus prpsal, ith all thin%s bein% eBual, it shall en7y

preference in the aardin% f the infrastructure pr7ect.

This is the e8tent f the prtectin that !e%islature intended t affrd the ri%inal prpnent, assupprted by the e8chan%e beteen enatrs )eptali Gnales and er%i smea durin% theecnd eadin% f enate /ill ). 6+*:

enatr Gnales:

8 8 8 8

The cncept bein% that in case f an unslicited prpsal and nnetheless public biddin% has

been held, then *#( o!$!na& +o+on(n#- "a&&, !n ())(%#, 3( $an#(d 'a# !" #( (!a&(n#o) #( !$# o) )!"# ()"a& 38 o))(!n$ a 3!d '!% "a&& (a& o 3(##( #( 3!d o) #('!nn!n$ 3!dd( '!#!n a +(!od f, let us say, @0 days frm the date f biddin%.

enatr smea:

8 8 8 8

T capture the tenr f the prpsal f the distin%uished Gentleman, a subseBuent para%raphhas t be added hich says, IF THERE IS A COMPETITIVE PROPOSAL, THE ORIGINAL

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_169914_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_169914_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_169914_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_169914_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_169914_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_169914_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_169914_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_169914_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_169914_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/apr2008/gr_169914_2008.html#fnt26


39/171


40/171

eBuipment and machinery fr a %iven infrastructure facility, if the interest f the Gvernment sreBuires, perates the facility prvidin% in the prcess technl%y transfer and trainin% t5ilipin natinals.@2 #;mphasis urs.'

The ri%inal prpsal f A;


41/171

specius and an apparent stretch in the interpretatin f ectin ?-A f epublic Act ). 9+>, asamended by epublic Act ). >>6*, and ule 60 f the .

n all, 7ust as A;


42/171

ules 60 and 66 f the . t bears n cmmitment n the part f the


43/171

Thus, the ma8imum amunt that ecurity /an( culd validly invest in the Paircar%Cnsrtium is nly P+2*,+2+,+.++, representin% 6+W f its entire net rth. The ttal netrth therefre f the Paircar% Cnsrtium, after cnsiderin% the a>! aon#" thatmay be validly invested by each f its members is P@@,! aon#" #a# (a% 3!dd( a8 !n("# !n #( +o/(%# a# #(#!( o) +(?a&!)!%a#!on.

8 8 8 8

Thus, if the a>! aon# o) (!#8 that a bidder may invest in the pr7ect a# #( #!(#( 3!d" a( "3!##(d falls shrt f the minimum amunts reBuired t be put up by thebidder, said bidder shuld be prperly disBualified. Cnsiderin% that at the pre-Bualificatin

sta%e, the ma8imum amunts hich the Paircar% Cnsrtium may invest in the pr7ect fellshrt f the minimum amunts prescribed by the P/AC, e hld that Paircar% Cnsrtiumas nt a Bualified bidder. Thus the aard f the cntract by the P/AC t the Paircar%Cnsrtium, a disBualified bidder, is null and vid.@9

Pursuant t the abve-Buted rulin%, A;


44/171

n additin t the substantive ea(nesses f the Petitin f A;


45/171

i' the nullificatin f the prceedin%s befre the


46/171

2. CnseBuently, the parties have d(%!d(d #o a!%a3&8 "(##&( the instant case and /o!n#&8o( )o #( d!"!""a& theref ithut any f the parties admittin% liability r cncedin% tthe psitin ta(en by the ther in the instant case.

@. Petitiner, n the ther hand, and the respndents, n the ther hand, hereby (&(a"( and)o(( d!"%a$( (a% o#( )o an8 and a&& &!a3!&!#!(" , direct r indirect, hether criminalr civil, hich arse in cnnectin ith the instant case.

?. The parties a%ree t bear the csts, attrneyHs fees and ther e8penses they respectivelyincurred in cnnectin ith the instant case. #;mphasis urs.'

A;


47/171

frm the case, after A; Cncessin A%reement beteen the


48/171

then President ;strada as remved frm ffice in =anuary 2006. A;


49/171

its aard f the pr7ect t PATC is nt incnsistent ith its psitin that neither shuld A;


50/171

ithdra the amunt f P@,002,62+,000.00 frm the abve-mentined Certificates f March 200 and 6+ =une 200, r Jfrm therise causin% payment and frm furtherprceedin% ith the determinatin f 7ust cmpensatin in the e8prpriatin case invlved herein,until such time that petitinerHs mtin t declare in default and mtin fr partial summary 7ud%mentshall have been reslved by the trial curt4 r it is clarified that PATC cate%rically disputes theprferred value fr )AA Terminal @.J The T as t be effective fr @0 days. T days later, n 2

Au%ust 200, the epublic filed ith the Curt f Appeals an r%ent Mtin t !ift Tempraryestrainin% rder, hich the appellate curt scheduled fr hearin% n + eptember 200.

Dhile the r%ent Mtin t lift the T as still pendin% ith the Curt f Appeals, the epublicalready filed the present Petitin fr Certiorari and Prhibitin Dith r%ent Applicatin fr a

Temprary estrainin% rder andIr Drit f Preliminary n7unctin, attributin% t the Curt f Appeals%rave abuse f discretin in %rantin% the T and see(in% a rit f prhibitin a%ainst the Curt f Appeals t en7in it frm %ivin% due curse t /aterinaHs Petitin in CA-G.. ). 9++@9. The epublicthus raises befre this Curt the fllin% ar%uments:

TF; CT 5 APP;A! CMMTT;< GA1; A/; 5


51/171

A. TF F)A/!; CTH


52/171

n ? eptember 200, the epublic filed a Manifestatin and Mtin t Dithdra r%ent Mtin t!ift Temprary estrainin% rder ith the Curt f Appeals statin%, amn% ther thin%s, that it haddecided t ithdra the said Mtin as it had pted t avail f ther ptins and remedies.


53/171

epublic and sub7ect t the utcme f the prceedin%s fr the determinatin f recvery n&uantu) )eruit due t PATC, if any.

;. T DIRECT the licitr General t disclse the evidence it has %athered n crruptin,bribery, fraud, bad faith, etc ., t this Fnrable Curt and the Cmmissin n Audit, and tDECLARE such evidence t be admissible in any prceedin% fr the determinatin f anycmpensatin due t PATC, if any.

[5". n the alternative, t:

i. SET ASIDE the trial curtHs


54/171

d(#(!n(d !n a%%odan%( '!# &a' and (!#8= and 4!! #a# #( $o(n(n# !" 3a(d)o #a;!n$ o( NAIA n#!& "% /"# %o+(n"a#!on !" +a!d. The parties cannt bealled t evade the directives laid dn by this Curt thru%h any mde f 7udicial actin,such as the cmplaint fr eminent dmain.

t cannt be denied thu%h that the Curt in the 200? eslutin prescribed mandatry%uidelines hich the Gvernment must bserve befre it culd acBuire the )AA @ facilities.Thus, the actins f respndent 7ud%e under revie, as ell as the ar%uments f the parties

must, t merit affirmatin, pass the threshld test f hether such prpsitins are in accrdith the 200? eslutin.?

The Curt then, in #ingo+on, directly addressed the issue n the apprpriateness f the epublicHsresrt t e8prpriatin prceedin%s:

T( Go(n(n# a" %o"(n #o ("o# #o (>+o+!a#!on, a ((d8 aa!&a3&( nd( #(&a', '!% a" #( add(d 3(n()!# o) an !n#($a#(d +o%("" )o #( d(#(!na#!on o) /"#%o+(n"a#!on and #( +a8(n# #((o) #o PIATCO. De appreciate that the case at bar is a!$&8 n"a& %a"(, hereby the Gvernment see(s t e8prpriate a buildin% cmple8cnstructed n land hich the tate already ns. There is an inherent ill%ic in the resrt t

eminent dmain n prperty already ned by the tate. At first blush, since the tate alreadyns the prperty n hich )AA @ stands, the prper remedy shuld be a(in t an actin fre7ectment.

Ho'((, #( (a"on )o #( ("o# 38 #( Go(n(n# #o (>+o+!a#!on +o%((d!n$" !"nd("#anda3&( !n #!" %a"(. The 200? eslutin, in reBuirin% the payment f 7ustcmpensatin prir t the ta(ever by the Gvernment f )AA @, effectively precluded it frmacBuirin% pssessin r nership f the )AA @ thru%h the unilateral e8ercise f its ri%hts asthe ner f the %rund n hich the facilities std. Thus, as thin%s std after the 200?eslutin, the ri%ht f the Gvernment t ta(e ver the )AA @ terminal as precnditinedby laful rder n the payment f 7ust cmpensatin t PATC as builder f the structures.

8 8 8 8

The ri%ht f eminent dmain e8tends t persnal and real prperty, and the )AA @ structures,adhered as they are t the sil, are cnsidered as real prperty. The public purpse fr thee8prpriatin is als beynd dispute. t shuld als be nted that S(%#!on 1 o) R&( 67 4onE>+o+!a#!on (%o$n!(" #( +o""!3!&!#8 #a# #( +o+(#8 "o$# #o 3( (>+o+!a#(da8 3( #!#&(d !n #( na( o) #( R(+3&!% o) #( P!&!++!n(", ao$ o%%+!(d 38+!a#( !nd!!da&", and in such case an averment t that effect shuld be made in thecmplaint. The instant e8prpriatin cmplaint did aver that the )AA @ cmple8 Jstands n aparcel f land ned by the /ases Cnversin


55/171

till, in applyin% the las and rules n e8prpriatin in the case at bar, e are impelled t applyr cnstrue these rules in accrdance ith the CurtHs prescriptins in the 200? eslutin tachieve the end effect that the Gvernment may validly ta(e ver the )AA @ facilities. nsfaras this case is cncerned, the 200? eslutin is effective nt nly as a le%al precedent, butas the surce f ri%hts and prescriptins that must be %uaranteed, if nt enfrced, in thereslutin f this petitin. therise, the inte%rity and efficacy f the rulin%s f this Curt ill beseverely diminished.+ #;mphasis urs.'

The Curt, als in #ingo+on, cate%rically rec%nied PATCHs nership ver the structures it hadbuilt in )AA PT , t it:

T(( %an 3( no do3# #a# PIATCO a" o'n("!+ !$#" o( #( )a%!&!#!(" '!% !# ad)!nan%(d and %on"#%#(d. The 200? eslutin sBuarely rec%nied that ri%ht hen itmandated the payment f 7ust cmpensatin t PATC prir t the ta(ever by theGvernment f )AA @. The fact that the Gvernment resrted t eminent dmain prceedin%sin the first place is a cncessin n its part f PATCHs nership. ndeed, if n such ri%ht isrec%nied, then there shuld be n impediment fr the Gvernment t seie cntrl f )AA @thru%h rdinary e7ectment prceedin%s.

8 8 8 8

T", #( +o+(#8 "3/(%# o) (>+o+!a#!on, #( NAIA )a%!&!#!(", a( (a& +o+(#8o'n(d 38 PIATCO. 8 8 8 #;mphasis urs.'

t as further settled in #ingo+on that the e8prpriatin prceedin%s shall be held in accrdance ithepublic Act ). *9>?,> thus:

nli(e in the case f ule >, the applicatin f ep. Act ). *9>? ill nt cntravene the 200?eslutin, hich reBuires the payment f 7ust cmpensatin befre any ta(ever f the )AA@ facilities by the Gvernment. The 200? eslutin des nt particularie the e8tent such

payment must be effected befre the ta(ever, but it unBuestinably reBuires at least smede%ree f payment t the private prperty ner befre a rit f pssessin may issue. Theutiliatin f ep. Act ). *9>? %uarantees cmpliance ith this bare minimum reBuirement,as it assures the private prperty ner the payment f, at the very least, the prffered valuef the prperty t be seied. uch payment f the prffered value t the ner, flled by theissuance f the rit f pssessin in favr f the Gvernment, is precisely the schematic under ep. Act ). *9>?, ne hich facially cmplies ith the prescriptin laid dn in the 200?eslutin.

And finally, as t the determinatin f the amunt due PATC, this Curt ruled in #ingo+on that:

nder ep. Act ). *9>?, the Gvernment is reBuired t Jimmediately payJ the ner f theprperty the amunt eBuivalent t the sum f #6' ne hundred percent #600W' f the value fthe prperty based n the current relevant nal valuatin f the [/"4 and #2' the value f theimprvements andIr structures as determined under ectin >. As stated abve, the /nal valuatin cannt apply in this case, thus the amunt sub7ect t immediate paymentshuld be limited t Jthe value f the imprvements andIr structures as determined underectin >,J ith ectin > referrin% t the Jimplementin% rules and re%ulatins fr the eBuitablevaluatin f the imprvements andIr structures n the land.J nder the present implementin%rules in place, the valuatin f the imprvementsIstructures are t be based usin% #((+&a%((n# %o"# (#od. Fever, the replacement cst is nly ne f the factrs t becnsidered in determinin% the 7ust cmpensatin.



56/171

n additin t ep. Act ). *9>?, the 200? esolution in Agan als mandated that the paymentf 7ust cmpensatin shuld be !n a%%odan%( '!# (!#8 a" '(&&. Thus, in ascertainin% theultimate amunt f 7ust cmpensatin, the duty f the trial curt is t ensure that such amuntcnfrms nt nly t the la, such as ep. Act ). *9>?, but t principles f eBuity as ell.

Admittedly, there is n ay, at least fr the present, t immediately ascertain the value f theimprvements and structures since such valuatin is a matter fr factual determinatin. Ketep. Act ). *9>? permits an e8pedited means by hich the Gvernment can immediately

ta(e pssessin f the prperty ithut havin% t aait precise determinatin f the valuatin.ectin ?#c' f ep. Act ). *9>? states that Jin case the cmpletin f a %vernmentinfrastructure pr7ect is f utmst ur%ency and imprtance, and #(( !" no (>!"#!n$ a&a#!ono) #( a(a %on%(n(d, the implementin% a%ency shall immediately pay the ner f theprperty its +o)((d a&(, ta(in% int cnsideratin the standards prescribed in ectin +[f the la".J The Jprffered valueJ may stri(e as a hi%hly sub7ective standard based slely nthe intuitin f the %vernment, but ep. Act ). *9>? des prvide relevant standards byhich Jprffered valueJ shuld be based, as ell as the certainty f 7udicial determinatin fthe prpriety f the prffered value.

n filin% the cmplaint fr e8prpriatin, the Gvernment alle%ed t have depsited the amunt

f P@ /illin earmar(ed fr e8prpriatin, representin% the assessed value f the prperty. Thema(in% f the depsit, includin% the determinatin f the amunt f the depsit, asunderta(en under the errneus ntin that ule >, and nt ep. Act ). *9>?, is theapplicable la. till, as re%ards the amunt, the Curt sees n impediment t rec%nie thissum f P@ /illin as the prffered value under ectin ?#b' f ep. Act ). *9>?. After all, inthe initial determinatin f the prffered value, the Gvernment is nt strictly reBuired t adheret any predetermined standards, althu%h its prffered value may later be sub7ected t 7udicialrevie usin% the standards enumerated under ectin + f ep. Act ). *9>?.*

#ingo+on cnstitutes as the la f the case fr the e8prpriatin prceedin%s, dc(eted as Case ).0?-0*>C5M, befre the TC f Pasay City. !a f the case has been defined in the fllin%

manner Q

/y Jla f the caseJ is meant that Jhatever is nce irrevcably established as the cntrllin%le%al rule r decisin beteen the same parties in the same case cntinues t be the la fthe caseJ s ln% as the Jfacts n hich such decisin as predicated cntinue t be the factsf the case befre the curtJ #26 C.=.. @@0'. And nce the decisin becmes final, it is bindin%n all inferir curts and hence beynd their per and authrity t alter r mdify # abigtingvs. Acting %irector of /risons, G.. !-6++?*, ctber @0, 692'.9

A rulin% rendered n the first appeal, cnstitutes the la f the case, and, even if errneus, it may nln%er be disturbed r mdified since it has becme final ln% a%. >0

The e8tensive e8cerpts frm #ingo+on demnstrate and emphasie that the Curt had alreadyad7ud%ed the issues raised by /aterina, hich he either cnveniently verl(ed r stubbrnlyrefused t accept.

The %eneral rule precludin% the reliti%atin f material facts r Buestins hich ere in issue andad7udicated in frmer actin are cmmnly applied t all matters essentially cnnected ith thesub7ect matter f the liti%atin. Thus, it (>#(nd" #o ("#!on" n(%(""a!&8 !no&(d !n an !""(, andn(%(""a!&8 ad/d!%a#(d, o n(%(""a!&8 !+&!(d !n #( )!na& /d$(n#, althu%h n specificfindin% may have been made in reference theret, and althu%h such matters ere directly referred tin the pleadin%s and ere nt actually r frmally presented. nder this rule, if the recrd f the



57/171

frmer trial shs that the 7ud%ment culd nt have been rendered ithut decidin% the particularmatter, it ill be cnsidered as havin% settled that matter as t all future actins beteen the partiesand if a 7ud%ment necessarily presuppses certain premises, they are as %on%&"!( a" #(

/d$(n# !#"(&) . easns fr the rule are that a 7ud%ment is an ad7udicatin n all the matters hichare essential t supprt it, and that every prpsitin assumed r decided by the curt leadin% up tthe final cnclusin and upn hich such cnclusin is based is as effectually passed upn as theultimate Buestin hich is finally slved.>6

ince the issues /aterina ishes t raise as an intervenr in Case ). 0?-0*>C5M ere alreadysettled ith finality in bth Agan and #ingo+on, then there is n pint in still allin% his interventin.Fis Petitin-in-nterventin uld nly be a reliti%atin f matters that had been previuslyad7udicated by n less than the Fi%hest Curt f the land. And, in n manner can the TC f PasayCity in Case ). 0?-0*>C5M %rant the reliefs he prayed fr ithut departin% frm r runnin% afulf the final and e8ecutry


58/171

[G.. ). 6++006. =anuary 26, 200?"

[G.. ). 6+++?>. =anuary 26, 200@"

A!AC)/ 5. /AT;)A, C!A1;! A. MAT);N and C)TA)T) G. =AA!A, petitioners, vs.PF!PP); )T;)AT)A! A T;M)A! C., )C., MA)!A )T;)AT)A! APT

ATFTK,


59/171

GAK, N! F;C, =ACL;!); G)AC, TF;!MA )5A)T;, =;! =MA-A, MA;TTA!)CFC, !!K !C, 5A)C AGT MACAT!, MCFA;! MA!GAT,


60/171

!n#((no" Na$;a!"an$ Maa&!#a n$ Taon$ A""o%!a#!on, In%., 4NMTAI


61/171

+(#!#!on" 3( d!"!""(d and (and(d #o #( #!a& %o#" )o #!a& on #( (!#" o !n #(a(na#!( #a# #( 1BB7 Con%(""!on A$(((n#, #( ARCA and #( S++&((n#" 3( d(%&a(da&!d and 3!nd!n$.

I

Po%(da& Ma##("

a. La%; o) J!"d!%#!on

P!a#( ("+ond(n#" and ("+ond(n#"?!n#((no" (!#(a#( a n3( o) +o%(da& !""("'!% #(8 !n"!"# d(+!(d #!" Co# o) /!"d!%#!on #o (a and d(%!d( #( !n"#an# %a"(" on !#"(!#". T(8 %on#!n( #o %&a! #a# #( %a"(" a# 3a a!"( )a%#a& ("#!on" '!% #!" Co# !"!&&?(!++(d #o ("o&(, (n%(, #(8 "# 3( (and(d #o #( #!a& %o# )o (%(+#!on o)(!d(n%(. F#(, #(8 a&&($( #a# ao$ d("!$na#(d a" +(#!#!on" )o %(#!oa! and+o!3!#!on, #( %a"(" a# 3a a( a%#a&&8 a%#!on" )o n&&!#8 o) %on#a%#" o( '!% #( #!a&%o#" a( (>%&"!( /!"d!%#!on. E(n a""!n$ #a# #( %a"(" a# 3a a( "+(%!a& %!!&a%#!on" )o %(#!oa! and +o!3!#!on, #(8 %on#(nd #a# #( +!n%!+&( o) !(a%8 o) %o#"+(%&d(" #!" Co# )o #a;!n$ +!a8 /!"d!%#!on o( #(.

( a( no# +("ad(d.

T(( !" a ("#!on o) )a%# '(n do3# o d!))((n%( a!"(" a" #o #( ## o )a&"!#8 o) #( )a%#"a&&($(d.@1*@- E(n a %"o8 (ad!n$ o) #( %a"(" a# 3a '!&& "o' #a# #( Co# d(%!d(d #(38 !n#(+(#!n$ and a++&8!n$ #( Con"#!##!on, #( OT La', !#" I+&((n#!n$ R&(" and o#((&(an# &($a& +!n%!+&(" on #( 3a"!" o) %&(a&8 nd!"+#(d )a%#". A&& #( o+(a#!( )a%#" '(("(##&(d, (n%(, #(( !" no n((d )o a #!a& #8+( d(#(!na#!on o) #(! ## o )a&"!#8 38 a #!a&%o#.

( (/(%# #( n8!(&d!n$ !n"!"#(n%( o) PIATCO E+&o8((" #a# #( )o&&o'!n$ )a%#a& !""(" a(

%!#!%a& and 3(8ond #( %a+a3!&!#8 o) #!" Co# #o ("o&(, vi : 4a '(#( #( Na#!ona&E%ono!% D((&o+(n# A#o!#8? In("#(n# Cood!na#!n$ Co!##(( 4NEDA?ICC a++o(d#( S++&((n#"= 43 '(#( #( F!"# S++&((n# %(a#(d #(n 410 n(' )!nan%!a& o3&!$a#!on"on #( +a# o) #( $o(n(n#= and 4% '(#( #( 1BB7 Con%(""!on A$(((n# d(+a#(d )o#( da)# Con%(""!on A$(((n# %on#a!n(d !n #( !d Do%(n#".@2*6-

T( )a%#a& !""( o) '(#( #( NEDA?ICC a++o(d #( S++&((n#" !" ad&8 (&(an#. I# !"%&(a !n o D(%!"!on #a# #( PIATCO %on#a%#" '(( !na&!da#(d on o#( and o("3"#an#!a& $ond". I# d!d no# (&8 on #( +("(n%( o a3"(n%( o) NEDA?ICC a++oa& o) #(S++&((n#". On #( o#( and, #( &a"# #'o !""(" do no# !no&( d!"+#(d )a%#". Ra#(,#(8 !no&( %on#a%#a& +o!"!on" '!% a( %&(a and %a#($o!%a& and n((d on&8 #o 3(

!n#(+(#(d. T( !n#(+(#a#!on o) %on#a%#" and #( d(#(!na#!on o) '(#( #(! +o!"!on"!o&a#( o &a'" o %on#a(n( an8 +3&!% +o&!%8 !" a &($a& !""( '!% #!" Co# a8 +o+(&8+a"" +on.

51

52


62/171

R("+ond(n#"9 %oo&&a8 %on#(n#!on #a# #!" Co# !o&a#(d #( !(a%8 o) %o#" '(n !#(n#(#a!n(d #( %a"(" a# 3a "# a&"o )a!&. T( &( on !(a%8 o) %o#" !n %a"(" )a&&!n$'!#!n #( %on%(n# /!"d!%#!on o) #( #!a& %o#" and a++(&&a#( %o#" $(n(a&&8 a++&!(" #o%a"(" !no&!n$ 'a!n$ )a%#a& a&&($a#!on". Fo #!" (a"on, &!#!$an#" a( (!(d #o (+a! #o#( #!a& %o#" a# #( )!"# !n"#an%( #o d(#(!n( #( ## o )a&"!#8 o) #("( %on#(nd!n$a&&($a#!on" on #( 3a"!" o) #( (!d(n%( o) #( +a#!(". Ca"(" '!% d(+(nd on d!"+#(d )a%#")o d(%!"!on %anno# 3( 3o$# !(d!a#(&8 3()o( a++(&&a#( %o#" a" #(8 a( no# #!(" o))a%#".

I# $o(" '!#o# "a8!n$ #a# '(n %a"(" 3o$# 3()o( #( a++(&&a#( %o#" do no# !no&()a%#a& 3# &($a& ("#!on", a "#!%# a++&!%a#!on o) #( &( o) !(a%8 o) %o#" !" no#n(%(""a8. A" #( %a"(" a# 3a ((&8 %on%(n #( %on"#%#!on o) #( Con"#!##!on, #(!n#(+(#a#!on o) #( OT La' and !#" I+&((n#!n$ R&(" and R($&a#!on" on nd!"+#(d%on#a%#a& +o!"!on" and $o(n(n# a%#!on", and a" #( %a"(" %on%(n +3&!% !n#(("#, #!"Co# ("o&(d #o #a;( +!a8 /!"d!%#!on o( #(. T!" %o!%( o) a%#!on )o&&o'" #(%on"!"#(n# "#an%( o) #!" Co# #o "(##&( an8 %on#o("8 '!# a !$ +3&!% !n#(("#%o+on(n# !n a "!n$&( +o%((d!n$ and #o &(a( no oo# o 3an% #a# %o&d 3(a #( "((d" o))#( &!#!$a#!on. T( "$$("#(d (and o) #( %a"(" a# 3a #o #( #!a& %o# '!&& "#a8 a'a8)o #!" +o&!%8.@*7-

b. !e%al tandin%

espndent PATC stands pat ith its ar%ument that petitiners lac( le%al persnality t file thecases at bar as they are nt real parties in interest h are bund principally r subsidiarily t thePATC Cntracts. 5urther, respndent PATC cntends that petitiners failed t sh any le%allydemandable r enfrceable ri%ht t 7ustify their standin% t file the cases at bar.

These ar%uments are nt difficult t deflect. The determinatin f hether a persn may institute anactin r becme a party t a suit brin%s t fre the cncepts f real party in interest, capacity t sueand standin% t sue. T the le%ally discernin%, these three cncepts are different althu%h cmmnly

directed tards ensurin% that nly certain parties can maintain an actin.+?[*" As defined in the ulesf Curt, a real party in interest is the party h stands t be benefited r in7ured by the 7ud%ment inthe suit r the party entitled t the avails f the suit.++[9" Capacity t sue deals ith a situatin here apersn h may have a cause f actin is disBualified frm brin%in% a suit under applicable la r isincmpetent t brin% a suit r is under sme le%al disability that uld prevent him frm maintainin%an actin unless represented by a %uardian ad lite). !e%al standin% is relevant in the realm f publicla. n certain instances, curts have alled private parties t institute actins challen%in% thevalidity f %vernmental actin fr vilatin f private ri%hts r cnstitutinal principles.+[60" n thesecases, curts apply the dctrine f le%al standin% by determinin% hether the party has a d!(%# and

53

54

55

56


63/171

+("ona& !n#(("# !n #( %on#o("8 and '(#( "% +a#8 a" ""#a!n(d o !" !n !!n(n#dan$( o) ""#a!n!n$ an !n/8 a" a (" o) #( a%# %o+&a!n(d o) , a standard hich is distinctfrm the cncept f real party in interest.+>[66" Measured by this yardstic(, the applicatin f thedctrine n le%al standin% necessarily invlves a preliminary cnsideratin f the merits f the caseand is nt purely a prcedural issue.+*[62"

Cnsiderin% the nature f the cntrversy and the issues raised in the cases at bar, this Curt affirmsits rulin% that the petitiners have the reBuisite le%al standin%. The petitiners in G.. )s. 6++006

and 6++6 are emplyees f service prviders peratin% at the e8istin% internatinal airprts andemplyees f MAA hile petitiners-intervenrs are service prviders ith e8istin% cntracts ithMAA and they ill all sustain direct in7ury upn the implementatin f the PATC Cntracts. The699> Cncessin A%reement and the ACA bth prvide that upn the cmmencement f peratinsat the )AA PT , )AA Passen%er Terminals and ill cease t be used as internatinalpassen%er terminals.+9[6@" 5urther, the ACA prvides:

#d' 5r the purpse f an rderly transitin, MAA shall nt rene any e8pired cncessina%reement relative t any service r peratin currently bein% underta(en at the )iny ABuinnternatinal Airprt Passen%er Terminal , r e8tend any cncessin a%reement hich may e8piresubseBuent heret, e8cept t the e8tent that the cntinuatin f the e8istin% services and peratins

shall lapse n r befre the n-ervice


64/171

passed upn by this Curt in previus cases. They can chart the future infl f investment underthe /T !a.

/efre ritin% finis t the issue f le%al standin%, the Curt ntes the bid f ne parties t participatein the cases at bar as respndents-intervenrs, namely, #6' the PATC ;mplyees and #2' )MTA#cllectively, the )e espndents-ntervenrs'. After the Curt3s "

The ules f Curt %vern the time f filin% a Mtin t ntervene. ectin 2, ule 69 prvides that aMtin t ntervene shuld be filed $befre renditin f 7ud%ment....& The )e espndents-ntervenrs filed their separate mtins after a decisin has been prmul%ated in the present cases.They have nt ffered any rthy e8planatin t 7ustify their late interventin. CnseBuently, theirMtins fr ecnsideratin-n-nterventin are denied fr the rules cannt be rela8ed t aait

liti%ants h sleep n their ri%hts. n any event, a side%lance at these late mtins ill sh that theyhist n nvel ar%uments.

c. 5ailure t mplead an ndispensable Party

PATC ne8t cntends that petitiners shuld have impleaded the epublic f the Philippines as anindispensable party. t alle%es that petitiners sued the


65/171

They are interested and indispensable parties t this Petitin.&>[26" Thus, public respndents (%#(d the cntracts.

Mre imprtantly, it is als t late in the day fr PATC t raise this issue. f PATC seriuslyvies the nn-inclusin f the epublic f the Philippines as an indispensable party as fatal t thepetitins at bar, it shuld have raised the issue at the nset f the prceedin%s as a %rund tdismiss. PATC cannt liti%ate issues n a piecemeal basis, therise, liti%atins shall be li(e ashre that (ns n end. n any event, the licitr General, the le%al cunsel f the epublic,

appeared in the cases at bar in representatin f the interest f the %vernment.

Pre-Bualificatin f PATC

The mplementin% ules prvide fr the unyieldin% standards the P/AC shuld apply t determinethe financial capability f a bidder fr pre-Bualificatin purpses: #i' prf f the ability f the pr7ectprpnent andIr the cnsrtium #o +o!d( a !n! aon# o) (!#8 #o #( +o/(%# and #ii' aletter testimnial frm reputable ban(s attestin% that #( +o/(%# +o+on(n# andKo (3(" o) #(%on"o#! a( 3an;!n$ '!# #(, #a# #(8 a( !n $ood )!nan%!a& "#and!n$, and #a# #(8 a(

ad(a#( ("o%(".*[22" The evident intent f these standards is t prtect the inte%rity and insurethe viability f the pr7ect by seein% t it that the prpnent has the financial capability t carry it ut.

As a further measure t achieve this intent, it a!n#a!n" a %(#a!n d(3#?#o?(!#8 a#!o )o #(+o/(%#.

At the pre-Bualificatin sta%e, it is mst imprtant fr a bidder t sh that it has the financial capacityt underta(e the pr7ect by prvin% that it can fulfill the reBuirement n minimum amunt f eBuity.5r this purpse, the /id 0:@0,

67

68

69


66/171

prvided that if the actual Pr7ect csts shuld e8ceed the afresaid amunt,Cncessinaire shall ensure that the debt-t-eBuity rati is maintained4>0[2?"

nder the debt-t-eBuity restrictin, a bidder may nly see( financin% f the )AA PT Pr7ect up t>0W f the pr7ect cst. Thirty percent #@0W' f the cst must cme in the frm f eBuity rinvestment by the bidder itself. t cannt be verly emphasied that the rules reBuire a minimumamunt f eBuity t ensure that a bidder is nt merely an peratr r implementr f the pr7ect 3#an !n("#o '!# a "3"#an#!a& !n#(("# !n !#" "%%("" . The minimum eBuity reBuirement als

%uarantees the Philippine %vernment and the %eneral public, h are the ultimate beneficiaries fthe pr7ect, that a bidder ill nt be indifferent t the cmpletin f the pr7ect. The discntinuance fthe pr7ect ill irreparably dama%e public interest mre than private interest.

n the cases at bar, after applyin% the investment ceilin%s prvided under the General /an(in% Actand cnsiderin% the ma8imum amunts that each member f the cnsrtium may validly invest in thepr7ect, it is dayli%ht clear that the Paircar% Cnsrtium, at the time f pre-Bualificatin, had a netrth eBuivalent t nly 6.0 o) #( #o#a& ("#!a#(d +o/(%# %o"#.>6[2+" /y any rec(nin%, ashin% by a bidder that at the time f pre-Bualificatin its ma8imum funds available fr investmentamunt t nly .0*W f the pr7ect cst is insufficient t satisfy the reBuirement prescribed by themplementin% ules that the pr7ect prpnent must have the ability t prvide at least @0W f the

ttal estimated pr7ect cst. n pes and centav terms, at the time f pre-Bualificatin, the Paircar%Cnsrtium had ma8imum funds available fr investment t the )AA PT Pr7ect nly in theamunt f P++*,@*?,*>6.++, hen it had t sh that it had the ability t prvide at leastP2,>++,09+,000.00. The hu%e disparity cannt be dismissed as f de )ini)is imprtancecnsiderin% the hi%h public interest at sta(e in the pr7ect.

PATC nimbly tries t sidestep its failure by alle%in% that it submitted nt nly audited financialstatements but als testimnial letters frm reputable ban(s attestin% t the %d financial standin% fthe Paircar% Cnsrtium. t cntends that in ad7ud%in% hether the Paircar% Cnsrtium is a pre-Bualified bidder, the P/AC shuld have cnsidered nt nly its financial statements but ther factrsshin% its financial capability.

Anent this ar%ument, the %uidelines prvided in the /id


67/171

T("#!on!a& &(##(" )o (+#a3&( 3an;" attestin% that each f the members f the nershipentity are ban(in% ith them, in %d financial standin% and havin% adeBuate resurces are t beprvided.>2[2"

t is beynd refutatin that Paircar% Cnsrtium failed t prve its a3!&!#8 #o +o!d( #( aon# o)a# &(a"# P2,7@@,0B@,000.00, o 0 o) #( ("#!a#(d +o/(%# %o"# . ts submissin f testimnialletters attestin% t its %d financial standin% ill nt cure this failure. At best, the said letters merelyestablish its credit rthiness r its ability t btain lans t finance the pr7ect. They d nt,

hever, prve cmpliance ith the afresaid reBuirement f minimum amunt f eBuity in relatin tthe prescribed debt-t-eBuity rati. This eBuity cannt be satisfied thru%h pssible lans.

n sum, e a%ain hld that %iven the %larin% %ap beteen the net rth f Paircar% and PAGcmbined ith the amunt f ma8imum funds that ecurity /an( may invest by eBuity in a nn-alliedunderta(in%, Paircar% Cnsrtium, at the time f pre-Bualificatin, failed t sh that it had the abilityt prvide @0W f the pr7ect cst and necessarily, its financial capability fr the pr7ect cannt passmuster.

699> Cncessin A%reement

A%ain, e bri%htline the principle that in public biddin%, bids are submitted in accrd ith theprescribed terms, cnditins and parameters laid dn by %vernment and pursuant t thereBuirements f the pr7ect bidded upn. n li%ht f these parameters, bidders frmulate cmpetin%prpsals hich are evaluated t determine the bid mst favrable t the %vernment. nce thecntract based n the bid mst favrable t the %vernment is aarded, all that is left t be dne bythe parties is t e8ecute the necessary a%reements and implement them. There can be nsubstantial r material chan%e t the parameters f the pr7ect, includin% the essential terms andcnditins f the cntract bidded upn, after the cntract aard. f there ere chan%es and thecntracts end up unfavrable t %vernment, the public biddin% becmes a mc(ery and the mdified

cntracts must be struc( dn.

espndents insist that there ere n substantial r material amendments in the 699> Cncessin A%reement as t the technical aspects f the pr7ect, i.e., en%ineerin% desi%n, technical sundness,peratinal and maintenance methds and prcedures f the pr7ect r the #(%n!%a& +o+o"a& fPATC. 5urther, they maintain that there as n mdificatin f the financial features f the pr7ect,i.e., minimum pr7ect cst, debt-t-eBuity rati, the peratins and maintenance bud%et, the scheduleand amunt f annual %uaranteed payments, r the )!nan%!a& +o+o"a& f PATC. A discussin fsme f these chan%es t determine hether they altered the terms and cnditins upn hich thebids ere made is a%ain in rder.

a. Mdificatin n 5ees andChar%es t be cllected by PATC

PATC clin%s t the cntentin that the remval f the %rundhandlin% fees, airline ffice rentals andprtera%e fees frm the cate%ry f fees sub7ect t MAA re%ulatin in the 699> Cncessin

A%reement des nt cnstitute a substantial amendment as these fees are nt really public utilityfees. n ther rds, PATC 7ustifies the re-classificatin under the 699> Cncessin A%reement on#( $ond #a# #("( )((" a( non?+3&!% #!&!#8 ((n(" .

72


68/171

De disa%ree. The remval f %rundhandlin% fees, airline ffice rentals and prtera%e fees frm thecate%ry f $Public tility evenues& under the draft Cncessin A%reement and its re-classificatint $)n-Public tility evenues& under the 699> Cncessin A%reement is si%nificant and has farreachin% cnseBuence. The 699> Cncessin A%reement prvides that ith respect t )n-Publictility evenues, hich include %rundhandlin% fees, airline ffice rentals and prtera%e fees,>@[2>" $[PATC" may ma(e any ad7ustments it deems apprpriate '!#o# n((d )o #( %on"(n# o) GRPo an8 $o(n(n# a$(n%8.&>?[2*" n cntrast, the draft Cncessin A%reement specifies these feesas part f Public tility evenues and can be ad7usted $on&8 on%( ((8 #'o 8(a" and in

accrdance ith the Parametric 5rmula& and $the ad7ustments shall be made effective on&8 a)#( #('!##(n (>+("" a++oa& o) #( MIAA.&>+[29" The /id [@0"

The plain purpse in re-classifyin% %rundhandlin% fees, airline ffice rentals and prtera%e fees asnn-public utility fees !" #o (o( #( )o ($&a#!on 38 #( MIAA. n e8cludin% these feesfrm %vernment re%ulatin, the dan%er t public interest cannt be dnplayed.

73

74

75

76


69/171

De are nt impressed by the effrt f PATC t depress this pre7udice t public interest by itscntentin that in the 699> Cncessin A%reement %vernin% )n-Public tility evenues, it isprvided that $[PATC" shall at all times be /d!%!o" in fi8in% fees and char%es cnstitutin% )n-Public tility evenues in rder t ensure that ;nd sers are nt unreasnably deprived fservices.&>>[@6" PATC then peddles the prpsitin that the said prvisin cnfers upn MAA $)&&($&a#o8 +o'(" t ensure that PATC is char%in% nn-public utility revenues at (udicious rates.&>*[@2" T the trained eye, the ar%ument ill nt fly fr it is bviusly non se&uitur . 5airly read, itis PATC that ields the per t determine the 7udiciusness f the said fees and char%es. n the

draft Cncessin A%reement the per as e8pressly ld%ed ith the MAA and any ad7ustment cannly be dne nce every t years. The chan%es are nt insi%nificant spec(s as interpreted byPATC.

PATC further ar%ues that there is n substantial chan%e in the 699> Cncessin A%reement ithrespect t fees and char%es PATC is alled t impse hich are nt cvered by Administrativerder ). 6, eries f 699@>9[@@" as the $relevant prvisin f the 699> Cncessin A%reement ispractically identical ith the draft Cncessin A%reement.&*0[@?"

De are nt persuaded. nder the draft Cncessin A%reement, PATC may !+o"( fees andchar%es ther than thse fees and char%es previusly impsed r cllected at the )iny ABuin

nternatinal Airprt Passen%er Terminal , sub7ect t the ritten apprval f MAA.*6[@+" 5urther, thedraft Cncessin A%reement prvides that MAA ("((" #( !$# #o ($&a#( these ne fees andchar%es if in its 7ud%ment the users f the airprt shall be deprived f a free ptin fr the servicesthey cver.*2[@" n cntrast, under the 699> Cncessin A%reement, #( MIAA ((&8 (#a!n(d #(!$# #o a++o( an8 !+o"!#!on o) n(' fees and char%es hich ere nt previusly cllected atthe )iny ABuin nternatinal Airprt Passen%er Terminal . T( a$(((n# d!d no# %on#a!n an(!a&(n# +o!"!on a&&o'!n$ MIAA #o ("(( #( !$# #o ($&a#( #( ad/"#(n#" f thesene fees and char%es.*@[@>" PATC 7ustifies the amendment by ar%uin% that MAA can establishterms befre apprval f ne fees and char%es, inclusive f the mde fr their ad7ustment.

77

78

79

80

81

82

83


70/171

PATC3s stance is a%ain a strained ne. There uld have been n need fr an amendment if thereere n chan%e in the per t re%ulate n the part f MAA. The deletin f MAA3s reservatin f itsri%ht t re%ulate the price ad7ustments f ne fees and char%es can have n ther purpse but #od!&#( #( (>#(n# f MAA3s re%ulatin in the cllectin f these fees. A%ain, the amendmentdiminished the authrity f MAA t prtect the public interest in case f abuse by PATC.

b. Assumptin by theGvernment f the liabilities

f PATC in the event f the latter3sdefault

PATC psits the thesis that the ne prvisins in the 699> Cncessin A%reement in case fdefault by PATC n its lans ere merely meant t prescribe and limit the ri%hts f PATC3screditrs ith re%ard t the )AA Terminal . PATC alle%es that ectin ?.0? f the 699>Cncessin A%reement simply prvides that PATC3s creditrs have n ri%ht t freclse the )AATerminal .

De cannt cncur. The pertinent prvisins f the 699> Cncessin A%reement state:

ectin ?.0? Assi%nment.

. . . .

#b' n the event Cncessinaire shuld default in the payment f an Attendant !iability, andthe default has resulted in the acceleratin f the payment due date f the Attendant !iability prir tits stated date f maturity, the npaid Creditrs and Cncessinaire shall immediately infrm GP inritin% f such default. GP shall, ithin ne hundred ei%hty #6*0'


71/171

A%reement and the chan%e runs ru%hshd t the spirit and plicy f the /T !a hich as craf

Documents

Civpro Cases on Jurisdiction (Repaired)