Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No.

162059 January 22, 2008

KASAMA sa U.P., a system-wide alliance of student councils within the state university, consequently filed a complaint for Malversation of Public Funds and Property with the Office of the Ombudsman. On July 3, 2003, the Ombudsman, after due investigation, found probable cause to indict petitioner and her brother Jade Ian D. Serana for estafa, docketed as Criminal Case No. 27819 of the Sandiganbayan. The Information reads: The undersigned Special Prosecution Officer III, Office of the Special Prosecutor, hereby accuses HANNAH EUNICE D. SERANA and JADE IAN D. SERANA of the crime of Estafa, defined and penalized under Paragraph 2(a), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended committed as follows: That on October, 24, 2000, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, abovenamed accused, HANNAH EUNICE D. SERANA, a high-ranking public officer, being then the Student Regent of the University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, while in the performance of her official functions, committing the offense in relation to her office and taking advantage of her position, with intent to gain, conspiring with her brother, JADE IAN D. SERANA, a private individual, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud the government by falsely and fraudulently representing to former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada that the renovation of the Vinzons Hall of the University of the Philippines will be renovated and renamed as "President Joseph Ejercito Estrada Student Hall," and for which purpose accused HANNAH EUNICE D. SERANA requested the amount of FIFTEEN MILLION PESOS (P15,000,000.00), Philippine Currency, from the Office of the President, and the latter relying and believing on said false pretenses and misrepresentation gave and delivered to said accused Land Bank Check No. 91353 dated October 24, 2000 in the amount of FIFTEEN MILLION PESOS (P15,000,000.00), which check was subsequently encashed by accused Jade Ian D. Serana on October 25, 2000 and misappropriated for their personal use and benefit, and despite repeated demands made upon the accused for them to return aforesaid amount, the said accused failed and refused to do so to the damage and prejudice of the government in the aforesaid amount. CONTRARY TO LAW. (Underscoring supplied) Petitioner moved to quash the information. She claimed that the Sandiganbayan does not have any jurisdiction over the offense charged or over her person, in her capacity as UP student regent. Petitioner claimed that Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, as amended by R.A. No. 8249, enumerates the crimes or offenses over which the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. It has

HANNAH EUNICE D. SERANA, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. DECISION REYES, R.T., J.: CAN the Sandiganbayan try a government scholar and accused, along with her brother, of swindling government funds? MAAARI bang litisin ng Sandiganbayan ang isang iskolar ng bayan, at ang kanyang kapatid, na kapwa pinararatangan ng estafa ng pera ng bayan? The jurisdictional question is posed in this petition for certiorari assailing the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division, denying petitioners motion to quash the information and her motion for reconsideration. The Antecedents Petitioner Hannah Eunice D. Serana was a senior student of the University of the Philippines-Cebu. A student of a state university is known as a government scholar. She was appointed by then President Joseph Estrada on December 21, 1999 as a student regent of UP, to serve a one-year term starting January 1, 2000 and ending on December 31, 2000. In the early part of 2000, petitioner discussed with President Estrada the renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex in UP Diliman. On September 4, 2000, petitioner, with her siblings and relatives, registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission the Office of the Student Regent Foundation, Inc. (OSRFI). One of the projects of the OSRFI was the renovation of the Vinzons Hall Annex. President Estrada gave Fifteen Million Pesos (P15,000,000.00) to the OSRFI as financial assistance for the proposed renovation. The source of the funds, according to the information, was the Office of the President. The renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex failed to materialize. The succeeding student regent, Kristine Clare Bugayong, and Christine Jill De Guzman, Secretary General of the
**

1 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

no jurisdiction over the crime of estafa. It only has jurisdiction over crimes covered by Title VII, Chapter II, Section 2 (Crimes Committed by Public Officers), Book II of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Estafa falling under Title X, Chapter VI (Crimes Against Property), Book II of the RPC is not within the Sandiganbayans jurisdiction. She also argued that it was President Estrada, not the government, that was duped. Even assuming that she received the P15,000,000.00, that amount came from Estrada, not from the coffers of the government. Petitioner likewise posited that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over her person. As a student regent, she was not a public officer since she merely represented her peers, in contrast to the other regents who held their positions in an ex officio capacity. She addsed that she was a simple student and did not receive any salary as a student regent. She further contended that she had no power or authority to receive monies or funds. Such power was vested with the Board of Regents (BOR) as a whole. Since it was not alleged in the information that it was among her functions or duties to receive funds, or that the crime was committed in connection with her official functions, the same is beyond the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan citing the case of Soller v. Sandiganbayan. The Ombudsman opposed the motion. It disputed petitioners interpretation of the law. Section 4(b) of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1606 clearly contains the catch -all phrase "in relation to office," thus, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the charges against petitioner. In the same breath, the prosecution countered that the source of the money is a matter of defense. It should be threshed out during a full-blown trial. According to the Ombudsman, petitioner, despite her protestations, was a public officer. As a member of the BOR, she heads the general powers of administration and exercises the corporate powers of UP. Based on Mechems definition of a public office, petitioners stance that she was not compensated, hence, not a public officer, is erroneous. Compensation is not an essential part of public office. Parenthetically, compensation has been interpreted to include allowances. By this definition, petitioner was compensated. Sandiganbayan Disposition In a Resolution dated November 14, 2003, the Sandiganbayan denied petitioners motion for lack of merit. It ratiocinated: The focal point in controversy is the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over this case. It is extremely erroneous to hold that only criminal offenses covered by Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code are within the jurisdiction of this

Court. As correctly pointed out by the prosecution, Section 4(b) of R.A. 8249 provides that the Sandiganbayan also has jurisdiction over other offenses committed by public officials and employees in relation to their office. From this provision, there is no single doubt that this Court has jurisdiction over the offense of estafa committed by a public official in relation to his office. Accused-movants claim that being merely a member in representation of the student body, she was never a public officer since she never received any compensation nor does she fall under Salary Grade 27, is of no moment, in view of the express provision of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8249 which provides: Sec. 4. Jurisdiction The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving: (A) x x x (1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade "27" and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including: xxxx (g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations. (Italics supplied) It is very clear from the aforequoted provision that the Sandiganbayan has original exclusive jurisdiction over all offenses involving the officials enumerated in subsection (g), irrespective of their salary grades, because the primordial consideration in the inclusion of these officials is the nature of their responsibilities and functions. Is accused-movant included in the contemplated provision of law? A meticulous review of the existing Charter of the University of the Philippines reveals that the Board of Regents, to which accused-movant belongs, exclusively exercises the general powers of administration and corporate powers in the university, such as: 1) To receive and appropriate to the ends specified by law such sums as may be provided by law for the support of the university; 2) To prescribe rules for its own government and to enact for the government of the university such general ordinances and regulations, not contrary to law, as are consistent with the purposes of the university; and 3) To appoint, on recommendation of the President of the University, professors, instructors, lecturers and other employees of the University; to fix their compensation, hours of service, and such other duties and conditions as it may deem proper; to grant to them in its discretion leave of absence under such regulations as it may promulgate, any other

2 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

provisions of law to the contrary notwithstanding, and to remove them for cause after an investigation and hearing shall have been had. It is well-established in corporation law that the corporation can act only through its board of directors, or board of trustees in the case of non-stock corporations. The board of directors or trustees, therefore, is the governing body of the corporation. It is unmistakably evident that the Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines is performing functions similar to those of the Board of Trustees of a non-stock corporation. This draws to fore the conclusion that being a member of such board, accused-movant undoubtedly falls within the category of public officials upon whom this Court is vested with original exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of the fact that she does not occupy a position classified as Salary Grade 27 or higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989. Finally, this court finds that accused-movants contention that the same of P15 Million was received from former President Estrada and not from the coffers of the government, is a matter a defense that should be properly ventilated during the trial on the merits of this case. On November 19, 2003, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. The motion was denied with finality in a Resolution dated February 4, 2004. Issue Petitioner is now before this Court, contending that "THE RESPONDENT COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK AND/OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN NOT QUASHING THE INFORMATION AND DISMISING THE CASE NOTWITHSTANDING THAT IS HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE OFFENSE CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION." In her discussion, she reiterates her four-fold argument below, namely: (a) the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over estafa; (b) petitioner is not a public officer with Salary Grade 27 and she paid her tuition fees; (c) the offense charged was not committed in relation to her office; (d) the funds in question personally came from President Estrada, not from the government. Our Ruling The petition cannot be granted. Preliminarily, the denial of a motion toquash is not correctible by certiorari. We would ordinarily dismiss this petition for certiorari outright on procedural grounds. Well-established is the rule that when a motion to quash in a criminal case is denied, the

remedy is not a petition for certiorari, but for petitioners to go to trial, without prejudice to reiterating the special defenses invoked in their motion to quash. Remedial measures as regards interlocutory orders, such as a motion to quash, are frowned upon and often dismissed. The evident reason for this rule is to avoid multiplicity of appeals in a single action. In Newsweek, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, the Court clearly explained and illustrated the rule and the exceptions, thus: As a general rule, an order denying a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory and cannot be subject of appeal until final judgment or order is rendered. (Sec. 2 of Rule 41). The ordinary procedure to be followed in such a case is to file an answer, go to trial and if the decision is adverse, reiterate the issue on appeal from the final judgment. The same rule applies to an order denying a motion to quash, except that instead of filing an answer a plea is entered and no appeal lies from a judgment of acquittal. This general rule is subject to certain exceptions. If the court, in denying the motion to dismiss or motion to quash, acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, then certiorari or prohibition lies. The reason is that it would be unfair to require the defendant or accused to undergo the ordeal and expense of a trial if the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or offense, or is not the court of proper venue, or if the denial of the motion to dismiss or motion to quash is made with grave abuse of discretion or a whimsical and capricious exercise of judgment. In such cases, the ordinary remedy of appeal cannot be plain and adequate. The following are a few examples of the exceptions to the general rule. In De Jesus v. Garcia (19 SCRA 554), upon the denial of a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, this Court granted the petition for certiorari and prohibition against the City Court of Manila and directed the respondent court to dismiss the case. In Lopez v. City Judge (18 SCRA 616), upon the denial of a motion to quash based on lack of jurisdiction over the offense, this Court granted the petition for prohibition and enjoined the respondent court from further proceeding in the case. In Enriquez v. Macadaeg (84 Phil. 674), upon the denial of a motion to dismiss based on improper venue, this Court granted the petition for prohibition and enjoined the respondent judge from taking cognizance of the case except to dismiss the same. In Manalo v. Mariano (69 SCRA 80), upon the denial of a motion to dismiss based on bar by prior judgment, this Court granted the petition for certiorari and directed the respondent judge to dismiss the case.

3 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

In Yuviengco v. Dacuycuy (105 SCRA 668), upon the denial of a motion to dismiss based on the Statute of Frauds, this Court granted the petition for certiorari and dismissed the amended complaint. In Tacas v. Cariaso (72 SCRA 527), this Court granted the petition for certiorari after the motion to quash based on double jeopardy was denied by respondent judge and ordered him to desist from further action in the criminal case except to dismiss the same. In People v. Ramos (83 SCRA 11), the order denying the motion to quash based on prescription was set aside on certiorari and the criminal case was dismissed by this Court. We do not find the Sandiganbayan to have committed a grave abuse of discretion. The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan isset by P.D. No. 1606, as amended, not by R.A. No. 3019, as amended. We first address petitioners contention that the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is determined by Section 4 of R.A. No. 3019 (The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as amended). We note that petitioner refers to Section 4 of the said law yet quotes Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, in her motion to quash before the Sandiganbayan. She repeats the reference in the instant petition for certiorari and in her memorandum of authorities. We cannot bring ourselves to write this off as a mere clerical or typographical error. It bears stressing that petitioner repeated this claim twice despite corrections made by the Sandiganbayan. Her claim has no basis in law. It is P.D. No. 1606, as amended, rather than R.A. No. 3019, as amended, that determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. A brief legislative history of the statute creating the Sandiganbayan is in order. The Sandiganbayan was created by P.D. No. 1486, promulgated by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos on June 11, 1978. It was promulgated to attain the highest norms of official conduct required of public officers and employees, based on the concept that public officers and employees shall serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency and shall remain at all times accountable to the people. P.D. No. 1486 was, in turn, amended by P.D. No. 1606 which was promulgated on December 10, 1978. P.D. No. 1606 expanded the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. P.D. No. 1606 was later amended by P.D. No. 1861 on March 23, 1983, further altering the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction. R.A. No. 7975 approved on March 30, 1995 made succeeding amendments to P.D. No. 1606, which was again amended on February 5,

1997 by R.A. No. 8249. Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249 further modified the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. As it now stands, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the following: Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. - The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving: A. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, other known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense: (1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade "27" and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including: " (a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads; " (b) City mayor, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads; "(c ) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher; " (d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank; " (e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position of provincial director and those holding the rank of senior superintended or higher; " (f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor; " (g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations. " (2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade "27'" and up under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989; " (3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; " (4) Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commission, without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and " (5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade "27'" and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.

4 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

B. Other offenses of felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a of this section in relation to their office. C. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986. " In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to Salary Grade "27'" or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military and PNP officer mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended. " The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or order of regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided. " The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto, arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the Supreme Court. " The procedure prescribed in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as well as the implementing rules that the Supreme Court has promulgated and may thereafter promulgate, relative to appeals/petitions for review to the Court of Appeals, shall apply to appeals and petitions for review filed with the Sandiganbayan. In all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court, the Office of the Ombudsman, through its special prosecutor, shall represent the People of the Philippines, except in cases filed pursuant to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986. " In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the public officers or employees, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said public officers and employees in the proper courts which shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over them. " Any provisions of law or Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability shall, at all times, be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly determined in, the same

proceeding by the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate courts, the filing of the criminal action being deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve the filing such civil action separately from the criminal action shall be recognized: Provided, however, That where the civil action had heretofore been filed separately but judgment therein has not yet been rendered, and the criminal case is hereafter filed with the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, said civil action shall be transferred to the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, as the case may be, for consolidation and joint determination with the criminal action, otherwise the separate civil action shall be deemed abandoned." Upon the other hand, R.A. No. 3019 is a penal statute approved on August 17, 1960. The said law represses certain acts of public officers and private persons alike which constitute graft or corrupt practices or which may lead thereto. Pursuant to Section 10 of R.A. No. 3019, all prosecutions for violation of the said law should be filed with the Sandiganbayan. R.A. No. 3019 does not contain an enumeration of the cases over which the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. In fact, Section 4 of R.A. No. 3019 erroneously cited by petitioner, deals not with the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but with prohibition on private individuals. We quote: Section 4. Prohibition on private individuals. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person having family or close personal relation with any public official to capitalize or exploit or take advantage of such family or close personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any present, gift or material or pecuniary advantage from any other person having some business, transaction, application, request or contract with the government, in which such public official has to intervene. Family relation shall include the spouse or relatives by consanguinity or affinity in the third civil degree. The word "close personal relation" shall include close personal friendship, social and fraternal connections, and professional employment all giving rise to intimacy which assures free access to such public officer. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to induce or cause any public official to commit any of the offenses defined in Section 3 hereof. In fine, the two statutes differ in that P.D. No. 1606, as amended, defines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan while R.A. No. 3019, as amended, defines graft and corrupt practices and provides for their penalties. Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offense of estafa. Relying on Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, petitioner contends that estafa is not among those crimes cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. We note that in hoisting this argument,

5 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

petitioner isolated the first paragraph of Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, without regard to the succeeding paragraphs of the said provision. The rule is well-established in this jurisdiction that statutes should receive a sensible construction so as to avoid an unjust or an absurd conclusion. Interpretatio talis in ambiguis semper fienda est, ut evitetur inconveniens et absurdum. Where there is ambiguity, such interpretation as will avoid inconvenience and absurdity is to be adopted. Kung saan mayroong kalabuan, ang pagpapaliwanag ay hindi dapat maging mahirap at katawa-tawa. Every section, provision or clause of the statute must be expounded by reference to each other in order to arrive at the effect contemplated by the legislature. The intention of the legislator must be ascertained from the whole text of the law and every part of the act is to be taken into view. In other words, petitioners interpretation lies in direct opposition to the rule that a statute must be interpreted as a whole under the principle that the best interpreter of a statute is the statute itself. Optima statuti interpretatrix est ipsum statutum. Ang isang batas ay marapat na bigyan ng kahulugan sa kanyang kabuuan sa ilalim ng prinsipyo na ang pinakamainam na interpretasyon ay ang mismong batas. Section 4(B) of P.D. No. 1606 reads: B. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a of this section in relation to their office. Evidently, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over other felonies committed by public officials in relation to their office. We see no plausible or sensible reason to exclude estafa as one of the offenses included in Section 4(bB) of P.D. No. 1606. Plainly, estafa is one of those other felonies. The jurisdiction is simply subject to the twin requirements that (a) the offense is committed by public officials and employees mentioned in Section 4(A) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, and that (b) the offense is committed in relation to their office. In Perlas, Jr. v. People, the Court had occasion to explain that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over an indictment for estafa versus a director of the National Parks Development Committee, a government instrumentality. The Court held then: The National Parks Development Committee was created originally as an Executive Committee on January 14, 1963, for the development of the Quezon Memorial, Luneta and other national parks (Executive Order No. 30). It was later designated as the National Parks Development Committee (NPDC) on February 7, 1974 (E.O. No. 69). On January 9, 1966, Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos and Teodoro F. Valencia were designated

Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively (E.O. No. 3). Despite an attempt to transfer it to the Bureau of Forest Development, Department of Natural Resources, on December 1, 1975 (Letter of Implementation No. 39, issued pursuant to PD No. 830, dated November 27, 1975), the NPDC has remained under the Office of the President (E.O. No. 709, dated July 27, 1981). Since 1977 to 1981, the annual appropriations decrees listed NPDC as a regular government agency under the Office of the President and allotments for its maintenance and operating expenses were issued direct to NPDC (Exh. 10-A, Perlas, Item Nos. 2, 3). The Sandiganbayans jurisdiction over estafa was reiterated with greater firmness in Bondoc v. Sandiganbayan. Pertinent parts of the Courts ruling in Bondoc read: Furthermore, it is not legally possible to transfer Bondocs cases to the Regional Trial Court, for the simple reason that the latter would not have jurisdiction over the offenses. As already above intimated, the inability of the Sandiganbayan to hold a joint trial of Bondocs cases and those of the government employees separately charged for the same crimes, has not altered the nature of the offenses charged, as estafa thru falsification punishable by penalties higher than prision correccional or imprisonment of six years, or a fine of P6,000.00, committed by government employees in conspiracy with private persons, including Bondoc. These crimes are within the exclusive, original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. They simply cannot be taken cognizance of by the regular courts, apart from the fact that even if the cases could be so transferred, a joint trial would nonetheless not be possible. Petitioner UP student regentis a public officer. Petitioner also contends that she is not a public officer. She does not receive any salary or remuneration as a UP student regent. This is not the first or likely the last time that We will be called upon to define a public officer. In Khan, Jr. v. Office of the Ombudsman, We ruled that it is difficult to pin down the definition of a public officer. The 1987 Constitution does not define who are public officers. Rather, the varied definitions and concepts are found in different statutes and jurisprudence. In Aparri v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that: A public office is the right, authority, and duty created and conferred by law, by which for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to be exercise by him for the benefit of the public ([Mechem Public Offices and Officers,] Sec. 1). The right to hold a public office under our political system is therefore not a natural right. It exists, when it exists at all only because and by virtue of

6 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

some law expressly or impliedly creating and conferring it (Mechem Ibid., Sec. 64). There is no such thing as a vested interest or an estate in an office, or even an absolute right to hold office. Excepting constitutional offices which provide for special immunity as regards salary and tenure, no one can be said to have any vested right in an office or its salary (42 Am. Jur. 881). In Laurel v. Desierto,41 the Court adopted the definition of Mechem of a public office: "A public office is the right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law, by which, for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public. The individual so invested is a public officer." Petitioner claims that she is not a public officer with Salary Grade 27; she is, in fact, a regular tuition fee-paying student. This is likewise bereft of merit. It is not only the salary grade that determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan also has jurisdiction over other officers enumerated in P.D. No. 1606. In Geduspan v. People, We held that while the first part of Section 4(A) covers only officials with Salary Grade 27 and higher, its second part specifically includes other executive officials whose positions may not be of Salary Grade 27 and higher but who are by express provision of law placed under the jurisdiction of the said court. Petitioner falls under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as she is placed there by express provision of law.44 Section 4(A)(1)(g) of P.D. No. 1606 explictly vested the Sandiganbayan with jurisdiction over Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations. Petitioner falls under this category. As the Sandiganbayan pointed out, the BOR performs functions similar to those of a board of trustees of a non-stock corporation. By express mandate of law, petitioner is, indeed, a public officer as contemplated by P.D. No. 1606. Moreover, it is well established that compensation is not an essential element of public office. At most, it is merely incidental to the public office. Delegation of sovereign functions is essential in the public office. An investment in an individual of some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public makes one a public officer. The administration of the UP is a sovereign function in line with Article XIV of the Constitution. UP performs a legitimate governmental function by providing advanced instruction in literature, philosophy, the sciences, and arts, and giving professional and technical training. Moreover, UP is maintained by the Government and it declares no dividends and is not a corporation created for profit.

The offense charged was committed in relation to public office, according to the Information. Petitioner likewise argues that even assuming that she is a public officer, the Sandiganbayan would still not have jurisdiction over the offense because it was not committed in relation to her office. According to petitioner, she had no power or authority to act without the approval of the BOR. She adds there was no Board Resolution issued by the BOR authorizing her to contract with then President Estrada; and that her acts were not ratified by the governing body of the state university. Resultantly, her act was done in a private capacity and not in relation to public office. It is axiomatic that jurisdiction is determined by the averments in the information. More than that, jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by defendant or respondent in an answer, a motion to dismiss, or a motion to quash. Otherwise, jurisdiction would become dependent almost entirely upon the whims of defendant or respondent. In the case at bench, the information alleged, in no uncertain terms that petitioner, being then a student regent of U.P., "while in the performance of her official functions, committing the offense in relation to her office and taking advantage of her position, with intent to gain, conspiring with her brother, JADE IAN D. SERANA, a private individual, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud the government x x x." (Underscoring supplied) Clearly, there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan when it did not quash the information based on this ground. Source of funds is a defense that should be raised during trial on the merits. It is contended anew that the amount came from President Estradas private funds and not from the government coffers. Petitioner insists the charge has no leg to stand on. We cannot agree. The information alleges that the funds came from the Office of the President and not its then occupant, President Joseph Ejercito Estrada. Under the information, it is averred that "petitioner requested the amount of Fifteen Million Pesos (P15,000,000.00), Philippine Currency, from the Office of the President, and the latter relying and believing on said false pretenses and misrepresentation gave and delivered to said accused Land Bank Check No. 91353 dated October 24, 2000 in the amount of Fifteen Million Pesos (P15,000,000.00)."

7 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

Again, the Court sustains the Sandiganbayan observation that the source of the P15,000,000 is a matter of defense that should be ventilated during the trial on the merits of the instant case. A lawyer owes candor, fairness and honesty to the Court. As a parting note, petitioners counsel, Renato G. dela Cruz, misrepresented his reference to Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606 as a quotation from Section 4 of R.A. No. 3019. A review of his motion to quash, the instant petition for certiorari and his memorandum, unveils the misquotation. We urge petitioners counsel to observe Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 10.02 of the Rules stating that "a lawyer shall not misquote or misrepresent." The Court stressed the importance of this rule in Pangan v. Ramos, where Atty Dionisio D. Ramos used the name Pedro D.D. Ramos in connection with a criminal case. The Court ruled that Atty. Ramos resorted to deception by using a name different from that with which he was authorized. We severely reprimanded Atty. Ramos and warned that a repetition may warrant suspension or disbarment. We admonish petitioners counsel to be more careful and accurate in his citation. A lawyers conduct before the court should be characterized by candor and fairness. The administration of justice would gravely suffer if lawyers do not act with complete candor and honesty before the courts. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Ynares-Santiago, Chairperson, Austria-Martinez, Corona*, Nachura, JJ., concur.

8 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 175457 July 6, 2011

Ombudsman issued a Memorandum dated August 4, 2000, recommending the dismissal of the complaint as regards Balano and the amendment of the Information to include the charge of Delivering Prisoners from Jail under Article 156 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, (RPC) against the remaining accused. The Amended Information reads: That on or about the 6th day of September 1998, and for sometime prior [or] subsequent thereto, [in] the Municipality of Borongan, Province of Eastern Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [the] above-named accused, Ruperto A. Ambil, Jr.[,] being then the Provincial Governor of Eastern Samar, and Alexandrino R. Apelado, being then the Provincial Warden of Eastern Samar, both having been public officers, duly elected, appointed and qualified as such, committing the offense in relation to office, conniving and confederating together and mutually helping x x x each other, with deliberate intent, manifest partiality and evident bad faith, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally order and cause the release from the Provincial Jail of detention prisoner Mayor Francisco Adalim, accused in Criminal Case No. 10963, for Murder, by virtue of a warrant of Arrest issued by Honorable Arnulfo P. Bugtas, Presiding Judge, RTC-Branch 2, Borongan, Eastern Samar, and thereafter placed said detention prisoner (Mayor Francisco Adalim) under accused RUPERTO A. AMBIL, JR.s custody, by allowing said Mayor Adalim to stay at accused Ambils residence for a period of Eighty-Five (85) days, more or less which act was done without any court order, thus accused in the performance of official functions had given unwarranted benefits and advantage to detainee Mayor Francisco Adalim to the prejudice of the government. CONTRARY TO LAW. BAIL BOND RECOMMENDED: P30,000.00 each. On arraignment, petitioners pleaded not guilty and posted bail. At the pre-trial, petitioners admitted the allegations in the Information. They reason, however, that Adalims transfer was justified considering the imminent threats upon his person and the dangers posed by his detention at the provincial jail. According to petitioners, Adalims sister, Atty. Juliana A. Adalim-White, had sent numerous prisoners to the same jail where Mayor Adalim was to be held. Consequently, the prosecution no longer offered testimonial evidence and rested its case after the admission of its documentary exhibits. Petitioners filed a Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence with Reservation to Present Evidence in Case of Denial but the same was denied. At the trial, petitioners presented three witnesses: petitioner Ambil, Jr., Atty. Juliana A. Adalim-White and Mayor Francisco C. Adalim.

RUPERTO A. AMBIL, JR., Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x G.R. No. 175482 ALEXANDRINO R. APELADO, SR., Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. DECISION VILLARAMA, JR., J.: Before us are two consolidated petitions for review on certiorari filed by petitioner Ruperto A. Ambil, Jr and petitioner Alexandrino R. Apelado Sr assailing the Decision promulgated on September 16, 2005 and Resolution dated November 8, 2006 of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 25892. The present controversy arose from a letter of Atty. David B. Loste, President of the Eastern Samar Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), to the Office of the Ombudsman, praying for an investigation into the alleged transfer of then Mayor Francisco Adalim, an accused in Criminal Case No. 10963 for murder, from the provincial jail of Eastern Samar to the residence of petitioner, then Governor Ruperto A. Ambil, Jr. In a Report dated January 4, 1999, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) recommended the filing of criminal charges against petitioner Ambil, Jr. for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as amended. On September 22, 1999, the new President of the IBP, Eastern Samar Chapter, informed the Ombudsman that the IBP is no longer interested in pursuing the case against petitioners. Thus, he recommended the dismissal of the complaint against petitioners. Nonetheless, in an Information dated January 31, 2000, petitioners Ambil, Jr. and Alexandrino R. Apelado, Sr. were charged with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, together with SPO3 Felipe A. Balano. Upon reinvestigation, the Office of the

9 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

Petitioner Ambil, Jr. testified that he was the Governor of Eastern Samar from 1998 to 2001. According to him, it was upon the advice of Adalims lawyers that he directed the transfer of Adalims detention to his home. He cites poor security in the provincial jail as the primary reason for taking personal custody of Adalim considering that the latter would be in the company of inmates who were put away by his sister and guards identified with his political opponents. For her part, Atty. White stated that she is the District Public Attorney of Eastern Samar and the sister of Mayor Adalim. She recounted how Mayor Adalim was arrested while they were attending a wedding in Sulat, Eastern Samar, on September 6, 1998. According to Atty. White, she sought the alternative custody of Gov. Ambil, Jr. after Provincial Warden and herein petitioner Apelado, Sr. failed to guarantee the mayors safety. Meanwhile, Francisco Adalim introduced himself as the Mayor of Taft, Eastern Samar. He confirmed his arrest on September 6, 1998 in connection with a murder case filed against him in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Borongan, Eastern Samar. Adalim confirmed Atty. Whites account that he spotted inmates who served as bodyguards for, or who are associated with, his political rivals at the provincial jail. He also noticed a prisoner, Roman Akyatan, gesture to him with a raised clenched fist. Sensing danger, he called on his sister for help. Adalim admitted staying at Ambil, Jr.s residence for almost three months before he posted bail after the charge against him was downgraded to homicide. Petitioner Apelado, Sr. testified that he was the Provincial Jail Warden of Eastern Samar. He recalls that on September 6, 1998, SPO3 Felipe Balano fetched him at home to assist in the arrest of Mayor Adalim. Allegedly, Atty. White was contesting the legality of Mayor Adalims arrest and arguing with the jail guards against booking him for detention. At the provincial jail, petitioner was confronted by Atty. White who informed him that he was under the governor, in the latters capacity as a provincial jailer. Petitioner claims that it is for this reason that he submitted to the governors order to relinquish custody of Adalim. Further, petitioner Apelado, Sr. described the physical condition of the jail to be dilapidated and undermanned. According to him, only two guards were incharge of looking after 50 inmates. There were two cells in the jail, each housing 25 inmates, while an isolation cell of 10 square meters was unserviceable at the time. Also, there were several nipa huts within the perimeter for use during conjugal visits. On September 16, 2005, the Sandiganbayan, First Division, promulgated the assailed Decision finding petitioners guilty of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. The court ruled that in moving Adalim to a private residence, petitioners have conspired to accord him unwarranted benefits in the form of more comfortable quarters with access to television and other privileges that other detainees do not enjoy. It stressed that

under the Rules, no person under detention by legal process shall be released or transferred except upon order of the court or when he is admitted to bail. The Sandiganbayan brushed aside petitioners defense that Adalims transfer was made to ensure his safety. It observed that petitioner Ambil, Jr. did not personally verify any actual threat on Adalims life but relied simply on the advice of Adalims lawyers. The Sandiganbayan also pointed out the availability of an isolation cell and nipa huts within the 10-meter-high perimeter fence of the jail which could have been used to separate Adalim from other prisoners. Finally, it cited petitioner Ambil, Jr.s failure to turn over Adalim despite advice from Assistant Secretary Jesus Ingeniero of the Department of Interior and Local Government. Consequently, the Sandiganbayan sentenced petitioner Ambil, Jr. to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for nine (9) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and four (4) months. In favor of petitioner Apelado, Sr., the court appreciated the incomplete justifying circumstance of obedience to a superior order and sentenced him to imprisonment for six (6) years and one (1) month to nine (9) years and eight (8) months. Hence, the present petitions. Petitioner Ambil, Jr. advances the following issues for our consideration: I WHETHER OR NOT SECTION 3(e) REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019, AS AMENDED, APPLIES TO PETITIONERS CASE BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN. II WHETHER OR NOT A PUBLIC OFFICER SUCH AS PETITIONER IS A PRIVATE PARTY FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 3(e), REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019, AS AMENDED. III WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER ACTED WITH DELIBERATE INTENT, MANIFEST PARTIALITY, EVIDENT BAD FAITH OR GROSS INEXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE IN THE CONTEXT OF SAID SECTION 3(e). IV WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER AS PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR AND JAILER UNDER SECTIONS 1730 AND 1733, ARTICLE III, CHAPTER 45 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1917 AND SECTION 61, CHAPTER V, REPUBLIC ACT 6975 HAS THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE CUSTODY OF A DETENTION PRISONER.

10 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

V WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO THE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF FULFILLMENT OF A DUTY OR THE LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE. VI WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACQUITTED BECAUSE THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE DID NOT ESTABLISH HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.22 For his part, petitioner Apelado, Sr. imputes the following errors on the Sandiganbayan: I THERE WAS MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS AND/OR MISAPPLICATION OF THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE IN CONVICTING ACCUSED APELADO, EITHER AS PRINCIPAL OR IN CONSPIRACY WITH HIS CO-ACCUSED AMBIL. II IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPETENT PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF CONSPIRACY BETWEEN ACCUSED AMBIL AND HEREIN PETITIONER, THE LATTER SHOULD BE ACCORDED FULL CREDIT FOR THE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE UNDER PARAGRAPH 6, ARTICLE 11 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE. III THE COURT A QUOS BASIS IN CONVICTING BOTH ACCUSED AMBIL AND HEREIN PETITIONER OF HAVING GIVEN MAYOR ADALIM "UNWARRANTED BENEFITS AND ADVANTAGE TO THE PREJUDICE x x x OF THE GOVERNMENT IS, AT THE MOST, SPECULATIVE.23 The issues raised by petitioner Ambil, Jr. can be summed up into three: (1) Whether he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019; (2) Whether a provincial governor has authority to take personal custody of a detention prisoner; and (3) Whether he is entitled to the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty under Article 11(5) of the RPC. Meanwhile, petitioner Apelado, Sr.s assignment of errors can be condensed into two: (1) Whether he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019; and (2) Whether he is entitled to the justifying circumstance of obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose under Article 11(6) of the RPC. Fundamentally, petitioner Ambil, Jr. argues that Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019 does not apply to his case because the provision contemplates only transactions of a pecuniary

nature. Since the law punishes a public officer who extends unwarranted benefits to a private person, petitioner avers that he cannot be held liable for extending a favor to Mayor Adalim, a public officer. Further, he claims good faith in taking custody of the mayor pursuant to his duty as a "Provincial Jailer" under the Administrative Code of 1917. Considering this, petitioner believes himself entitled to the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of duty. Petitioner Apelado, Sr., on the other hand, denies allegations of conspiracy between him and petitioner Ambil, Jr. Petitioner Apelado, Sr. defends that he was merely following the orders of a superior when he transferred the detention of Adalim. As well, he invokes immunity from criminal liability. For the State, the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) points out the absence of jurisprudence that restricts the application of Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019 to transactions of a pecuniary nature. The OSP explains that it is enough to show that in performing their functions, petitioners have accorded undue preference to Adalim for liability to attach under the provision. Further, the OSP maintains that Adalim is deemed a private party for purposes of applying Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019 because the unwarranted benefit redounded, not to his person as a mayor, but to his person as a detention prisoner accused of murder. It suggests further that petitioners were motivated by bad faith as evidenced by their refusal to turn over Adalim despite instruction from Asst. Sec. Ingeniero. The OSP also reiterates petitioners lack of authority to take custody of a detention prisoner without a court order. Hence, it concludes that petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of any justifying circumstance. After a careful review of this case, the Court finds the present petitions bereft of merit. Petitioners were charged with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act which provides: Section. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. - In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful: xxxx (e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.

11 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

In order to hold a person liable under this provision, the following elements must concur: (1) the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; (2) he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and (3) his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. As to the first element, there is no question that petitioners are public officers discharging official functions and that jurisdiction over them lay with the Sandiganbayan. Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over public officers charged with violation of the Anti-Graft Law is provided under Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 8249. The pertinent portions of Section 4, P.D. No. 1606, as amended, read as follows: SEC. 4. Jurisdiction.The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving: a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense: (1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including: (a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers and other provincial department heads[;] xxxx In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to Salary Grade 27 or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military and PNP officers mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdiction as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended. xxxx Thus, the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over petitioner Ambil, Jr. is beyond question. The same is true as regards petitioner Apelado, Sr. As to him, a Certification from the Provincial Government Department Head of the HRMO shows that his position

as Provincial Warden is classified as Salary Grade 22. Nonetheless, it is only when none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary grade 27 or higher shall exclusive jurisdiction be vested in the lower courts. Here, petitioner Apelado, Sr. was charged as a co-principal with Governor Ambil, Jr., over whose position the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. Accordingly, he was correctly tried jointly with said public officer in the proper court which had exclusive original jurisdiction over them the Sandiganbayan. The second element, for its part, describes the three ways by which a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 may be committed, that is, through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. In Sison v. People, we defined "partiality," "bad faith" and "gross negligence" as follows: "Partiality" is synonymous with "bias" which "excites a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are." "Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud." "Gross negligence has been so defined as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property." x x x In this case, we find that petitioners displayed manifest partiality and evident bad faith in transferring the detention of Mayor Adalim to petitioner Ambil, Jr.s house. There is no merit to petitioner Ambil, Jr.s contention that he is authorized to transfer the detention of prisoners by virtue of his power as the "Provincial Jailer" of Eastern Samar. Section 28 of the Local Government Code draws the extent of the power of local chief executives over the units of the Philippine National Police within their jurisdiction: SEC. 28. Powers of Local Chief Executives over the Units of the Philippine National Police.The extent of operational supervision and control of local chief executives over the police force, fire protection unit, and jail management personnel assigned in their respective jurisdictions shall be governed by the provisions of Republic Act Numbered Sixty-nine hundred seventy-five (R.A. No. 6975), otherwise known as "The Department of the Interior and Local Government Act of 1990," and the rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto. In particular, Section 61, Chapter 5 of R.A. No. 6975 on the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology provides:

12 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

Sec. 61. Powers and Functions. - The Jail Bureau shall exercise supervision and control over all city and municipal jails. The provincial jails shall be supervised and controlled by the provincial government within its jurisdiction, whose expenses shall be subsidized by the National Government for not more than three (3) years after the effectivity of this Act. The power of control is the power of an officer to alter or modify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter. An officer in control lays down the rules in the doing of an act. If they are not followed, he may, in his discretion, order the act undone or re-done by his subordinate or he may even decide to do it himself. On the other hand, the power of supervision means "overseeing or the authority of an officer to see to it that the subordinate officers perform their duties." If the subordinate officers fail or neglect to fulfill their duties, the official may take such action or step as prescribed by law to make them perform their duties. Essentially, the power of supervision means no more than the power of ensuring that laws are faithfully executed, or that subordinate officers act within the law. The supervisor or superintendent merely sees to it that the rules are followed, but he does not lay down the rules, nor does he have discretion to modify or replace them. Significantly, it is the provincial government and not the governor alone which has authority to exercise control and supervision over provincial jails. In any case, neither of said powers authorizes the doing of acts beyond the parameters set by law. On the contrary, subordinates must be enjoined to act within the bounds of law. In the event that the subordinate performs an act ultra vires, rules may be laid down on how the act should be done, but always in conformity with the law. In a desperate attempt to stretch the scope of his powers, petitioner Ambil, Jr. cites Section 1731, Article III of the Administrative Code of 1917 on Provincial jails in support. Section 1731 provides: SEC. 1731. Provincial governor as keeper of jail.The governor of the province shall be charged with the keeping of the provincial jail, and it shall be his duty to administer the same in accordance with law and the regulations prescribed for the government of provincial prisons. The immediate custody and supervision of the jail may be committed to the care of a jailer to be appointed by the provincial governor. The position of jailer shall be regarded as within the unclassified civil service but may be filled in the manner in which classified positions are filled, and if so filled, the appointee shall be entitled to all the benefits and privileges of classified employees, except that he shall hold office only during the term of office of the appointing governor and until a successor in the office of the jailer is appointed and qualified, unless sooner separated. The provincial

governor shall, under the direction of the provincial board and at the expense of the province, supply proper food and clothing for the prisoners; though the provincial board may, in its discretion, let the contract for the feeding of the prisoners to some other person. (Emphasis supplied.) This provision survived the advent of the Administrative Code of 1987. But again, nowhere did said provision designate the provincial governor as the "provincial jailer," or even slightly suggest that he is empowered to take personal custody of prisoners. What is clear from the cited provision is that the provincial governors duty as a jail keeper is confined to the administration of the jail and the procurement of food and clothing for the prisoners. After all, administrative acts pertain only to those acts which are necessary to be done to carry out legislative policies and purposes already declared by the legislative body or such as are devolved upon it by the Constitution. Therefore, in the exercise of his administrative powers, the governor can only enforce the law but not supplant it. Besides, the only reference to a transfer of prisoners in said article is found in Section 1737 under which prisoners may be turned over to the jail of the neighboring province in case the provincial jail be insecure or insufficient to accommodate all provincial prisoners. However, this provision has been superseded by Section 3, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended. Section 3, Rule 114 provides: SEC. 3. No release or transfer except on court order or bail.-No person under detention by legal process shall be released or transferred except upon order of the court or when he is admitted to bail. Indubitably, the power to order the release or transfer of a person under detention by legal process is vested in the court, not in the provincial government, much less the governor. This was amply clarified by Asst. Sec. Ingeniero in his communication dated October 6, 1998 addressed to petitioner Ambil, Jr. Asst. Sec. Ingeniero wrote: 06 October 1996 GOVERNOR RUPERTO AMBIL Provincial Capitol Borongan, Eastern Samar Dear Sir: This has reference to the letter of Atty. Edwin B. Docena, and the reports earlier received by this Department, relative to your alleged action in taking into custody Mayor Francisco "Aising" Adalim of Taft, that province, who has been previously arrested by virtue by a warrant of arrest issued in Criminal Case No. 10963.

13 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

If the report is true, it appears that your actuation is not in accord with the provision of Section 3, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that an arrested person be delivered to the nearest police station or jail. Moreover, invoking Section 61 of RA 6975 as legal basis in taking custody of the accused municipal mayor is misplaced. Said section merely speaks of the power of supervision vested unto the provincial governor over provincial jails. It does not, definitely, include the power to take in custody any person in detention. In view of the foregoing, you are hereby enjoined to conduct yourself within the bounds of law and to immediately deliver Mayor Adalim to the provincial jail in order to avoid legal complications. Please be guided accordingly. Very truly yours, (SGD.) JESUS I. INGENIERO Assistant Secretary Still, petitioner Ambil, Jr. insisted on his supposed authority as a "provincial jailer." Said petitioners usurpation of the court's authority, not to mention his open and willful defiance to official advice in order to accommodate a former political party mate, betray his unmistakable bias and the evident bad faith that attended his actions. Likewise amply established beyond reasonable doubt is the third element of the crime. As mentioned above, in order to hold a person liable for violation of Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019, it is required that the act constituting the offense consist of either (1) causing undue injury to any party, including the government, or (2) giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge by the accused of his official, administrative or judicial functions. In the case at hand, the Information specifically accused petitioners of giving unwarranted benefits and advantage to Mayor Adalim, a public officer charged with murder, by causing his release from prison and detaining him instead at the house of petitioner Ambil, Jr. Petitioner Ambil, Jr. negates the applicability of Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019 in this case on two points. First, Section 3(e) is not applicable to him allegedly because the last sentence thereof provides that the "provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses, permits or other concessions" and he is not such government officer or employee. Second, the purported unwarranted benefit was accorded not to a private party but to a public officer.

However, as regards his first contention, it appears that petitioner Ambil, Jr. has obviously lost sight, if he is not altogether unaware, of our ruling in Mejorada v. Sandiganbayan where we held that a prosecution for violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft Law will lie regardless of whether or not the accused public officer is "charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions." Following is an excerpt of what we said in Mejorada, Section 3 cited above enumerates in eleven subsections the corrupt practices of any public officers (sic) declared unlawful. Its reference to "any public officer" is without distinction or qualification and it specifies the acts declared unlawful. We agree with the view adopted by the Solicitor General that the last sentence of paragraph [Section 3] (e) is intended to make clear the inclusion of officers and employees of officers (sic) or government corporations which, under the ordinary concept of "public officers" may not come within the term. It is a strained construction of the provision to read it as applying exclusively to public officers charged with the duty of granting licenses or permits or other concessions. (Italics supplied.) In the more recent case of Cruz v. Sandiganbayan, we affirmed that a prosecution for violation of said provision will lie regardless of whether the accused public officer is charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions. Meanwhile, regarding petitioner Ambil, Jr.s second contention, Section 2(b) of R.A. No. 3019 defines a "public officer" to include elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the classified or unclassified or exemption service receiving compensation, even nominal from the government. Evidently, Mayor Adalim is one. But considering that Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 punishes the giving by a public officer of unwarranted benefits to a private party, does the fact that Mayor Adalim was the recipient of such benefits take petitioners case beyond the ambit of said law? We believe not. In drafting the Anti-Graft Law, the lawmakers opted to use "private party" rather than "private person" to describe the recipient of the unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference for a reason. The term "party" is a technical word having a precise meaning in legal parlance as distinguished from "person" which, in general usage, refers to a human being. Thus, a private person simply pertains to one who is not a public officer. While a private party is more comprehensive in scope to mean either a private person or a public officer acting in a private capacity to protect his personal interest. In the present case, when petitioners transferred Mayor Adalim from the provincial jail and detained him at petitioner Ambil, Jr.s residence, they accorded such privilege to Adalim, not in his official capacity as a mayor, but as a detainee charged with murder.

14 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

Thus, for purposes of applying the provisions of Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019, Adalim was a private party. Moreover, in order to be found guilty under the second mode, it suffices that the accused has given unjustified favor or benefit to another in the exercise of his official, administrative or judicial functions. The word "unwarranted" means lacking adequate or official support; unjustified; unauthorized or without justification or adequate reason. "Advantage" means a more favorable or improved position or condition; benefit, profit or gain of any kind; benefit from some course of action. "Preference" signifies priority or higher evaluation or desirability; choice or estimation above another. Without a court order, petitioners transferred Adalim and detained him in a place other than the provincial jail. The latter was housed in much more comfortable quarters, provided better nourishment, was free to move about the house and watch television. Petitioners readily extended these benefits to Adalim on the mere representation of his lawyers that the mayors life would be put in danger inside the provincial jail. As the Sandiganbayan ruled, however, petitioners were unable to establish the existence of any risk on Adalims safety. To be sure, the latter would not be alone in having unfriendly company in lockup. Yet, even if we treat Akyatans gesture of raising a closed fist at Adalim as a threat of aggression, the same would still not constitute a special and compelling reason to warrant Adalims detention outside the provincial jail. For one, there were nipa huts within the perimeter fence of the jail which could have been used to separate Adalim from the rest of the prisoners while the isolation cell was undergoing repair. Anyhow, such repair could not have exceeded the 85 days that Adalim stayed in petitioner Ambil, Jr.s house. More importantly, even if Adalim could have proven the presence of an imminent peril on his person to petitioners, a court order was still indispensable for his transfer. The foregoing, indeed, negates the application of the justifying circumstances claimed by petitioners. Specifically, petitioner Ambil, Jr. invokes the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of right or office. Under paragraph 5, Article 11 of the RPC, any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office does not incur any criminal liability. In order for this justifying circumstance to apply, two requisites must be satisfied: (1) the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office; and (2) the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office. Both requisites are lacking in petitioner Ambil, Jr.s case.

As we have earlier determined, petitioner Ambil, Jr. exceeded his authority when he ordered the transfer and detention of Adalim at his house. Needless to state, the resulting violation of the Anti-Graft Law did not proceed from the due performance of his duty or lawful exercise of his office. In like manner, petitioner Apelado, Sr. invokes the justifying circumstance of obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose. Under paragraph 6, Article 11 of the RPC, any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose does not incur any criminal liability. For this justifying circumstance to apply, the following requisites must be present: (1) an order has been issued by a superior; (2) such order must be for some lawful purpose; and (3) the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful. Only the first requisite is present in this case. While the order for Adalims transfer emanated from petitioner Ambil, Jr., who was then Governor, neither said order nor the means employed by petitioner Apelado, Sr. to carry it out was lawful. In his capacity as the Provincial Jail Warden of Eastern Samar, petitioner Apelado, Sr. fetched Mayor Adalim at the provincial jail and, unarmed with a court order, transported him to the house of petitioner Ambil, Jr. This makes him liable as a principal by direct participation under Article 17(1) of the RPC. An accepted badge of conspiracy is when the accused by their acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part of and another performing another so as to complete it with a view to the attainment of the same object, and their acts although apparently independent were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments. Conspiracy was sufficiently demonstrated by petitioner Apelado, Sr.s willful cooperation in executing petitioner Ambil, Jr.s order to move Adalim from jail, despite the absence of a court order. Petitioner Apelado, Sr., a law graduate, cannot hide behind the cloak of ignorance of the law. The Rule requiring a court order to transfer a person under detention by legal process is elementary. Truth be told, even petitioner governor who is unschooled in the intricacies of the law expressed reservations on his power to transfer Adalim. All said, the concerted acts of petitioners Ambil, Jr. and Apelado, Sr. resulting in the violation charged, makes them equally responsible as conspirators. As regards the penalty imposed upon petitioners, Section 9(a) of R.A. No. 3019 punishes a public officer or a private person who violates Section 3 of R.A. No. 3019 with imprisonment for not less than six (6) years and one (1) month to not more than fifteen (15) years and perpetual disqualification from public office. Under Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law or Act No. 4103, as amended by Act No. 4225, if the offense is punished by a special law, the court shall sentence the accused to an

15 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. Thus, the penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan upon petitioner Ambil, Jr. of imprisonment for nine (9) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and four (4) months is in accord with law. As a co-principal without the benefit of an incomplete justifying circumstance to his credit, petitioner Apelado, Sr. shall suffer the same penalty. WHEREFORE, the consolidated petitions are DENIED. The Decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 25892 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. We find petitioners Ruperto A. Ambil, Jr. and Alexandrino R. Apelado, Sr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019. Petitioner Alexandrino R. Apelado, Sr. is, likewise, sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for nine (9) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and four (4) months. With costs against the petitioners. SO ORDERED. MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice

16 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 167702 March 20, 2009

On February 26, 1999, UVAI, Limjoco, Tan and Vilvestre filed a motion to dismiss on ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. They argued that it is the Home Insurance Guaranty Corporation (or "HIGC")2 which has jurisdiction over intracorporate disputes involving homeowners associations, pursuant to Exec. Order No. 535, Series of 1979, as amended by Exec. Order No. 90, Series of 1986. Opposing the motion, Eristingcol alleged, among others, that UVAI, Limjoco, Tan and Vilvestre did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Secs. 4 and 6, Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and are estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the [RTC] after they voluntarily appeared therein "and embraced its authority by agreeing to sign an Undertaking." On May 20, 1999, Eristingcol filed an amended complaint by (i) impleading Manuel Carmona (or "Carmona") and Rene Cristobal (or "Cristobal"), UVAIs newly-elected president and chairman of the board and newly-designated construction committee chairman, respectively, as additional defendants and (ii) increasing her claim for moral damages against each petitioner from P500,000.00 to P1,000,000.00. On May 25, 1999, Eristingcol filed a motion for production and inspection of documents, which UVAI, Limjoco, Tan, Vilvestre, Carmona and Cristobal opposed. The motion sought to compel [UVAI and its officers] to produce the documents used by UVAI as basis for the imposition of the P400,000.00 penalty on Eristingcol as well as letters and documents showing that UVAI had informed the other homeowners of their violations of the CRR. On May 26, 1999, the [RTC] issued an order which pertinently reads: IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, for lack of merit, the defendants Motion to Dismiss is Denied, and plaintiffs motion to declare defendants in default and for contempt are also Denied." The [RTC] ratiocinated that [UVAI, Limjoco, Tan and Vilvestre] may not assail its jurisdiction "after they voluntarily entered their appearance, sought reliefs therein, and embraced its authority by agreeing to sign an undertaking to desist from prohibiting (Eristingcols) workers from entering the village." In so ruling, it applied the doctrine enunciated in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy. On June 7, 1999, Eristingcol filed a motion reiterating her earlier motion for production and inspection of documents. On June 8, 1999, [UVAI, Limjoco, Tan and Vilvestre] moved for partial reconsideration of the order dated May 26, 1999. Eristingcol opposed the motion.

LOURDES L. ERISTINGCOL, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and RANDOLPH C. LIMJOCO, Respondents. DECISION NACHURA, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which assails the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision1 in CA-G.R. SP. No. 64642 dismissing Civil Case No. 99-297 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for lack of jurisdiction. The facts, as narrated by the CA, are simple. [Petitioner Lourdes] Eristingcol is an owner of a residential lot in Urdaneta Village (or "village"), Makati City and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 208586. On the other hand, [respondent Randolph] Limjoco, [Lorenzo] Tan and [June] Vilvestre were the former president and chairman of the board of governors (or "board"), construction committee chairman and village manager of [Urdaneta Village Association Inc.] UVAI, respectively. UVAI is an association of homeowners at Urdaneta Village. *Eristingcols+ action *against UVAI, Limjoco, Tan and Vilvestre+ is founded on the allegations that in compliance with the National Building Code and after UVAIs approval of her building plans and acceptance of the construction bond and architects fee, Eristingcol started constructing a house on her lot with "concrete canopy directly above the main door and highway"; that for alleged violation of its Construction Rules and Regulations (or "CRR") on "Set Back Line" vis-a-vis the canopy easement, UVAI imposed on her a penalty of P400,000.00 and barred her workers and contractors from entering the village and working on her property; that the CRR, particularly on "Set Back Line," is contrary to law; and that the penalty is unwarranted and excessive. On February 9, 1999, or a day after the filing of the complaint, the parties reached a temporary settlement whereby UVAI, Limjoco, Tan and Vilvestre executed an undertaking which allowed Eristingcols workers, contractors and suppliers to leave and enter the village, subject only to normal security regulations of UVAI.

17 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

On March 24, 2001, the *RTC+ issued an order granting Eristingcols motion for production and inspection of documents, while on March 26, 2001, it issued an order denying *UVAIs, Limjocos, Tans and Vilvestres+ motion for partial reconsideration. On May 10, 2001, [UVAI, Limjoco, Tan and Vilvestre] elevated the dispute before [the CA] via [a] petition for certiorari alleging that the [RTC] acted without jurisdiction in issuing the orders of May 26, 1999 and March 24 and 26, 2001.3 The CA issued the herein assailed Decision reversing the RTC Order 4 and dismissing Eristingcols complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Hence, this appeal positing a sole issue for our resolution: Whether it is the RTC or the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) which has jurisdiction over the subject matter of Eristingcols complaint. Before anything else, we note that the instant petition impleads only Limjoco as private respondent. The rest of the defendants sued by Eristingcol before the RTC, who then collectively filed the petition for certiorari before the CA assailing the RTCs Order, were, curiously, not included as private respondents in this particular petition. Eristingcol explains that only respondent Limjoco was retained in the instant petition as her discussions with UVAI and the other defendants revealed their lack of participation in the work-stoppage order which was supposedly single-handedly thought of and implemented by Limjoco. The foregoing clarification notwithstanding, the rest of the defendants should have been impleaded as respondents in this petition considering that the complaint before the RTC, where the petition before the CA and the instant petition originated, has yet to be amended. Furthermore, the present petition maintains that it was serious error for the CA to have ruled that the RTC did not have jurisdiction over a complaint for declaration of nullity of UVAIs Construction Rules. Clearly, UVAI and the rest of the defendants should have been impleaded herein as respondents. Section 4(a), Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, requires that the petition shall "state the full name of the appealing party as petitioner and the adverse party as respondent, without impleading the lower courts or judges thereof either as petitioners or respondents." As the losing party in defendants petition for certiorari before the CA, Eristingcol should have impleaded all petitioners, the winning and adverse parties therein. On this score alone, the present petition could have been dismissed outright. 5 However, to settle the issue of jurisdiction, we have opted to dispose of this case on the merits. Despite her having dropped UVAI, Lorenzo Tan (Tan) and June Vilvestre (Vilvestre) from this suit, Eristingcol insists that her complaint against UVAI and the defendants was

properly filed before the RTC as it prays for the declaration of nullity of UVAIs Construction Rules and asks that damages be paid by Limjoco and the other UVAI officers who had inflicted injury upon her. Eristingcol asseverates that since the case before the RTC is one for declaration of nullity, the nature of the question that is the subject of controversy, not just the status or relationship of the parties, should determine which body has jurisdiction. In any event, Eristingcol submits that the RTCs jurisdiction over the case was foreclosed by the prayer of UVAI and its officers, including Limjoco, for affirmative relief from that court. Well-settled in jurisprudence is the rule that in determining which body has jurisdiction over a case, we should consider not only the status or relationship of the parties, but also the nature of the question that is the subject of their controversy. 6 To determine the nature of an action and which court has jurisdiction, courts must look at the averments of the complaint or petition and the essence of the relief prayed for. 7 Thus, we examine the pertinent allegations in Eristingcols complaint, specifically her amended complaint, to wit: Allegations Common to All Causes of Action 3. In 1958 and upon its incorporation, [UVAI] adopted a set of By-laws and Rules and Regulations, x x x. Item 5 of *UVAIs+ Construction Rules pertinently provides: "Set back line: All Buildings, including garage servants quarters, or parts thereof (covered terraces, portes cocheres) must be constructed at a distance of not less than three (3) meters from the boundary fronting a street and not less than four (4) meters fronting the drainage creek or underground culvert and two (2) meters from other boundaries of a lot. Distance will be measured from the vertical projection of the roof nearest the property line. Completely open and unroofed terraces are not included in these restrictions." Suffice it to state that there is nothing in the same By-laws which deals explicitly with canopies or marquees which extend outward from the main building. 4. [Eristingcol] has been a resident of Urdaneta Village for eleven (11) years. In February 1997, she purchased a parcel of land in the Village, located at the corner of Urdaneta Avenue and Cerrada Street. x x x. 5. In considering the design for the house (the "Cerrada property") which she intended to construct on Cerrada Street, [Eristingcol] referred to the National Building Code of the Philippines. After assuring herself that the said law does not expressly provide any restrictions in respect thereof, and after noting that other houses owned by prominent families had similar structures without being cited by the Villages Construction

18 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

Committee, [Eristingcol] decided that the Cerrada property would have a concrete canopy directly above the main door and driveway. 6. In compliance with *UVAIs+ rules, *Eristingcol+ submitted to *UVAI+ copies of her building plans in respect of the Cerrada property and the building plans were duly approved by [UVAI]. x x x. 7. [Eristingcol] submitted and/or paid the "cash bond/construction bond deposit and architects inspection fee" of P200,000.00 and the architects inspection fee of P500.00 as required under Construction Rules x x x. 8. In the latter part of 1997, and while the construction of the Cerrada property was ongoing, [Eristingcol] received a notice from [UVAI], charging her with alleged violations of the Construction Rules, i.e., those on the height restriction of eleven (11.0) meters, and the canopy extension into the easement. On 22nd January 1998, [Eristingcol] (through her representatives) met with, among others, defendant Limjoco. In said meeting, and after deliberation on the definition of the phrase "original ground elevation" as a reference point, *Eristingcols+ representatives agreed to revise the building plan by removing what was intended to be a parapet or roof railing, and thereby reduce the height of the structure by 40 centimeters, which proposal was accepted by the Board through defendant Limjoco, Gov. Catalino Macaraig Jr. (*UVAIs+ Construction Committee chairman), and the Villages Architect. However, the issue of the alleged violation in respect of the canopy/extension remained unresolved. xxxx 9. In compliance with the agreement reached at the 22nd January 1998 meeting, [Eristingcol] caused the revision of her building plans such that, as it now stands, the Cerrada property has a vertical height of 10.96 meters and, thus, was within the Villages allowed maximum height of 11 meters. 10. Sometime in June 1998, [Eristingcol] was surprised to receive another letter from [UVAI], this time from the Construction Committee chairman (defendant Tan), again calling her attention to alleged violations of the Construction Rules. On 15th June 1998, *UVAI+ barred *Eristingcols+ construction workers from entering the Village. Thus, *Eristingcols+ Construction Manager (Mr. Jaime M. Hidalgo) wrote defendant Tan to explain her position, and attached photographs of similar "violations" by other property owners which have not merited the same scrutiny and sanction from [UVAI]. xxxx 11. On 26th October 1998, and for reasons known only to him, defendant Vilvestre sent a letter to Mr. Geronimo delos Reyes, demanding for an "idea of how [Mr. delos Reyes] can demonstrate in concrete terms [his] good faith as a quid pro quo for compromise

to" *UVAIs+ continued insistence that *Eristingcol+ had violated *UVAIs+ Construction Rules. x x x. xxxx 12. [Eristingcol] through Mr. Hidalgo sent a letter dated 24th November 1998 to defendant Tan, copies of which were furnished defendants Limjoco, Vilvestre and the Board, reiterating that, among others: (i) the alleged height restriction violation is untrue, since the Cerrada property now has a height within the limits imposed by [UVAI]; and (ii) the demand to reduce the canopy by ninety (90) centimeters is without basis, in light of the existence of thirty-five (35) similar "violations" of the same nature by other homeowners. [Eristingcol] through Mr. Hidalgo further mentioned that she had done nothing to deserve the crude and coercive Village letters and the Boards threats of work stoppage, and she cited instances when she dealt with [UVAI] and her fellow homeowners in good faith and goodwill such as in 1997, when she very discreetly spent substantial amounts to landscape the entire Village Park, concrete the Park track oval which was being used as a jogging path, and donate to the Association molave benches used as Park benches. xxxx 13. On the same date (24th November 1998), defendant Vilvestre sent another letter addressed to *Eristingcols+ construction manager Hidalgo, again threatening to enjoin all construction activity on the Cerrada property as well as ban entry of all workers and construction deliveries effective 1st December 1998 unless Mr. delos Reyes met with defendants. x x x. xxxx 14. On 2nd December 1998, *Eristingcols+ representatives met with defendants Limjoco, Tan, and Vilvestre. During that meeting, defendants were shown copies of the architectural plans for the Cerrada property. [Eristingcols+ representatives agreed to allow *UVAIs+ Construction Committees architect to validate the measurements given. However, on the issue of the canopy extension, the defendants informed *Eristingcols+ representatives that the Board would impose a penalty of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00) for violation of *UVAIs+ "set back" or easement rule. Defendants cited the Boards imposition of similar fines to previous homeowners who had violated the same rule, and they undertook to furnish [Eristingcol] with a list of past penalties imposed and paid by homeowners found by the Board to have violated the Villages "set back" provision.

19 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

15. On 22nd December 1998, defendant Vilvestre sent [Eristingcol] a letter dated 18th December 1998 formally imposing a penalty of P400,000.00 for the "canopy easement violation." x x x. 16. On 29th December 1998, x x x, Vilvestre sent a letter to [Eristingcol], stating that "as far as [his] administration is concerned, there has been no past penalties executed by [UVAI], similar to the one we are presently demanding on your on going construction. x xx 17. On 4th January 1999, *Eristingcols+ representative sent a letter to the Board, asking for a reconsideration of the imposition of the P400,000.00 penalty on the ground that the same is unwarranted and excessive. On 6th January 1999, [Eristingcol] herself sent a letter to the Board, expounding on the reasons for opposing the Boards action. On 18th January 1999, [Eristingcol] sent another letter in compliance with defendants request for a breakdown of her expenditures in respect of her donations relative to the Village park. 18. On 3rd February 1999, [Eristingcol] through her lawyers sent defendants a letter, requesting that her letters of 4th and 6th January 1999 be acted upon. 19. On 4th February 1999, x x x, defendant Limjoco gave a verbal order to *UVAIs+ guards to bar the entry of workers working on the Cerrada property. 20. In the morning of 5th February 1999, defendants physically barred *Eristingcols+ workers and contractors from entering the Village and working at the Cerrada property. 8 Eristingcol then lists the following causes of action: 1. Item 5 of UVAIs Construction Rules constitutes an illegal and unwarranted intrusion upon Eristingcols proprietary rights as it imposes a set-back or horizontal easement of 3.0 meters from the property line greater than the specification in Section 1005(b) of the Building Code that "the horizontal clearance between the outermost edge of the marquee and the curb line shall be not less than 300 millimeters." As such, Eristingcol prays for the declaration of nullity of this provision in UVAIs Construction Rules insofar as she is concerned. 2. UVAIs imposition of a P400,000.00 penalty on Eristingcol has no factual basis, is arbitrary, whimsical and capricious as rampant violations of the set-back rule by other homeowners in the Village were not penalized by UVAI. Eristingcol prays to put a stop to defendants arbitrary exercise of power pursuant to UVAIs by-laws. 3. Absent any factual or legal bases for the imposition of a P400,000.00 penalty, defendants and all persons working under their control should be permanently barred

or restrained from imposing and/or enforcing any penalty upon Eristingcol for an alleged violation of UVAIs Construction Rules, specifically the provision on set-back. 4. Defendants Limjoco, Tan, and Vilvestre, in violation of Article 19 of the Civil Code, demonstrated bias against Eristingcol by zeroing in on her alone and her supposed violation, while other homeowners, who had likewise violated UVAIs Construction Rules, were not cited or penalized therefor. Defendants actuations were in clear violation of their duty to give all homeowners, including Eristingcol, their due. 5. Defendants actuations have seriously affected Eristingcols mental disposition and have caused her to suffer sleepless nights, mental anguish and serious anxiety. Eristingcols reputation has likewise been besmirched by UVAIs and defendants arbitrary charge that she had violated UVAIs Construction Rules. In this regard, individual defendants should each pay Eristingcol moral damages in the amount of P1,000,000.00. 6. Lastly, defendants should pay Eristingcol P1,000.000.00 for litigation expenses she incurred in instituting this suit and for attorneys fees. At the outset, we note that the relationship between the parties is not in dispute and is, in fact, admitted by Eristingcol in her complaint. Nonetheless, Eristingcol is adamant that the subject matter of her complaint is properly cognizable by the regular courts and need not be filed before a specialized body or commission. Eristingcols contention is wrong. Ostensibly, Eristingcols complaint, designated as one for declaration of nullity, falls within the regular courts jurisdiction. However, we have, on more than one occasion, held that the caption of the complaint is not determinative of the nature of the action.9 A scrutiny of the allegations contained in Eristingcols complaint reveals that the nature of the question subject of this controversy only superficially delves into the validity of UVAIs Construction Rules. The complaint actually goes into the proper interpretation and application of UVAIs by-laws, specifically its construction rules. Essentially, the conflict between the parties arose as Eristingcol, admittedly a member of UVAI, now wishes to be exempt from the application of the canopy requirement set forth in UVAIs Construction Rules. Significantly, Eristingcol does not assail the height restriction of UVAIs Construction Rules, as she has readily complied therewith. Distinctly in point is China Banking Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 10 which upheld the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) over the suit and recognized its special competence to interpret and apply Valley Golf and Country Club, Inc.s (VGCCIs) by-laws. We ruled, thus:

20 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

Applying the foregoing principles in the case at bar, to ascertain which tribunal has jurisdiction we have to determine therefore whether or not petitioner is a stockholder of VGCCI and whether or not the nature of the controversy between petitioner and private respondent corporation is intra-corporate. As to the first query, there is no question that the purchase of the subject share or membership certificate at public auction by petitioner (and the issuance to it of the corresponding Certificate of Sale) transferred ownership of the same to the latter and thus entitled petitioner to have the said share registered in its name as a member of VGCCI. x x x. By virtue of the aforementioned sale, petitioner became a bona fide stockholder of VGCCI and, therefore, the conflict that arose between petitioner and VGCCI aptly exemplifies an intra-corporate controversy between a corporation and its stockholder under Sec. 5(b) of P.D. 902-A. An important consideration, moreover, is the nature of the controversy between petitioner and private respondent corporation. VGCCI claims a prior right over the subject share anchored mainly on Sec. 3, Art. VIII of its by-laws which provides that "after a member shall have been posted as delinquent, the Board may order his/her/its share sold to satisfy the claims of the Club" It is pursuant to this provision that VGCCI also sold the subject share at public auction, of which it was the highest bidder. VGCCI caps its argument by asserting that its corporate by-laws should prevail. The bone of contention, thus, is the proper interpretation and application of VGCCIs aforequoted by-laws, a subject which irrefutably calls for the special competence of the SEC. We reiterate herein the sound policy enunciated by the Court in Abejo v. De la Cruz: 6. In the fifties, the Court taking cognizance of the move to vest jurisdiction in administrative commissions and boards the power to resolve specialized disputes in the field of labor (as in corporations, public transportation and public utilities) ruled that Congress in requiring the Industrial Courts intervention in the resolution of labormanagement controversies likely to cause strikes or lockouts meant such jurisdiction to be exclusive, although it did not so expressly state in the law. The Court held that under the "sense-making and expeditious doctrine of primary jurisdiction the courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience, and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact, and a uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with the purposes of the regulatory statute administered.

xxxx In this case, the need for the SECs technical expertise cannot be over-emphasized involving as it does the meticulous analysis and correct interpretation of a corporations by-laws as well as the applicable provisions of the Corporation Code in order to determine the validity of VGCCIs claims. The SEC, therefore, took proper cognizance of the instant case.11 Likewise in point is our illuminating ruling in Sta. Clara Homeowners Association v. Sps. Gaston,12 although it ultimately held that the question of subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint of respondent- spouses Gaston for declaration of nullity of a board resolution issued by Sta. Clara Homeowners Association (SCHA) was vested in the regular courts. In Sta. Clara, the main issue raised by SCHA reads: "Whether [the CA] erred in upholding the jurisdiction of the *RTC+, to declare as null and void the resolution of the Board of SCHA, decreeing that only members [in] good standing of the said association were to be issued stickers for use in their vehicles." In holding that the regular courts had jurisdiction over respondent-spouses Gastons complaint for declaration of nullity, we stressed the absence of relationship and the consequent lack of privity of contract between the parties, thus: Are [Respondent-Spouses Gaston] SCHA Members? In order to determine if the HIGC has jurisdiction over the dispute, it is necessary to resolve preliminarilyon the basis of the allegations in the Complaintwhether [respondent-spouses Gaston] are members of the SCHA. [SCHA] contend[s] that because the Complaint arose from intra-corporate relations between the SCHA and its members, the HIGC therefore has jurisdiction over the dispute. To support their contention that [respondent-spouses Gaston] are members of the association, *SCHA+ cite*s+ the SCHAs Articles of Incorporation and By-laws which provide that all landowners of the Sta. Clara Subdivision are automatically members of the SCHA. We are not persuaded. The constitutionally guaranteed freedom of association includes the freedom not to associate. The right to choose with whom one will associate oneself is the very foundation and essence of that partnership. It should be noted that the provision guarantees the right to form an association. It does not include the right to compel others to form or join one. More to the point, [respondent-spouses Gaston] cannot be compelled to become members of the SCHA by the simple expedient of including them in its Articles of Incorporation and By-laws without their express or implied consent. x x x. In the present

21 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

case, however, other than the said Articles of Incorporation and By-laws, there is no showing that [respondent-spouses Gaston] have agreed to be SCHA members. xxxx No privity of Contract Clearly then, no privity of contract exists between [SCHA] and [respondent-spouses Gaston]. As a general rule, a contract is a meeting of minds between two persons. The Civil Code upholds the spirit over the form; thus, it deems an agreement to exist, provided the essential requisites are present. x x x. From the moment there is a meeting of minds between the parties, it is perfected. As already adverted to, there are cases in which a party who enters into a contract of sale is also bound by a lien annotated on the certificate of title. We recognized this in Bel Air Village Association, Inc. v. Dionisio, in which we ruled: There is no dispute that Transfer Certificate of Title No. 81136 covering the subject parcel of land issued in the name of the petitioner contains an annotation to the effect that the lot owner becomes an automatic member of the respondent Bel-Air Association and must abide by such rules and regulations laid down by the Association in the interest of the sanitation, security and the general welfare of the community. It is likewise not disputed that the provision on automatic membership was expressly annotated on the petitioners Transfer Certificate of Title and on the title of his predecessor-in-interest. The question, therefore, boils down to whether or not the petitioner is bound by such annotation. Section 39 of Art. 496 (The Land Registration Act) states: Sec. 39. Every person receiving a certificate of title in pursuance of a decree of registration, and every subsequent purchaser of registered land who takes a certificate of title for value in good faith shall hold the same free of all encumbrances except those noted on said certificate x x x. (Italics supplied) The above ruling, however, does not apply to the case at bar. When [respondentspouses Gaston] purchased their property in 1974 and obtained Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-126542 and T-127462 for Lots 11 and 12 of Block 37 along San Jose Avenue in Sta. Clara Subdivision, there was no annotation showing their automatic membership in the SCHA. Thus, no privity of contract arising from the title certificate exists between [SCHA] and [respondent-spouses Gaston]. Further, the records are bereft of any evidence that would indicate that private respondents intended to become members of the SCHA. Prior to the implementation of

the aforesaid Resolution, they and the other homeowners who were not members of the association were issued non-member gate pass stickers for their vehicles. This fact has not been disputed by [SCHA]. Thus, the SCHA recognized that there were subdivision landowners who were not members thereof, notwithstanding the provisions of its Articles of Incorporation and By-laws. Jurisdiction Determined by Allegations in the Complaint It is a settled rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint. Jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by the defendant in an answer or a motion to dismiss. Otherwise, jurisdiction would become dependent almost entirely upon the whims of the defendant. The Complaint does not allege that [respondent-spouses Gaston] are members of the SCHA. In point of fact, they deny such membership. Thus, the HIGC has no jurisdiction over the dispute.13 In stark contrast, the relationship between the parties in the instant case is wellestablished. Given this admitted relationship, the privity of contract between UVAI and Eristingcol is palpable, despite the latters deft phraseology of its primary cause of action as a declaration of nullity of UVAIs Construction Rules. In short, the crux of Eristingcols complaint is UVAIs supposed arbitrary implementation of its construction rules against Eristingcol, a member thereof. Moreover, as in Sta. Clara (had respondent-spouses Gaston been members of SCHA), the controversy which arose between the parties in this case partook of the nature of an intra-corporate dispute. Executive Order (E.O.) No. 535,14 which amended Republic Act No. 580 creating the HIGC, transferred to the HIGC the regulatory and administrative functions over homeowners associations originally vested with the SEC. Section 2 of E.O. No. 535 provides in pertinent part: 2. In addition to the powers and functions vested under the Home Financing Act, the Corporation, shall have among others, the following additional powers: (a) x x x; and exercise all the powers, authorities and responsibilities that are vested on the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect to home owners association, the provision of Act 1459, as amended by P.D. 902-A, to the contrary notwithstanding; (b) To regulate and supervise the activities and operations of all houseowners association registered in accordance therewith. By virtue thereof, the HIGC likewise assumed the SECs original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving controversies arising from intra-corporate or partnership relations.15 Thereafter, with the advent of Republic Act No. 8763, the

22 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

foregoing powers and responsibilities vested in the HIGC, with respect to homeowners associations, were transferred to the HLURB. As regards the defendants supposed embrace of the RTCs jurisdiction by appearing thereat and undertaking to desist from prohibiting Eristingcols workers from entering the village, suffice it to state that the invocation of the doctrine in Tijam, et al. v. Sibonghanoy, et al.16 is quite a long stretch. The factual milieu obtaining in Tijam and in the case at bench are worlds apart. As found by the CA, defendants appearance before the RTC was pursuant to, and in compliance with, a subpoena issued by that court in connection with Eristingcols application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). On defendants supposed agreement to sign the Undertaking allowing Eristingcols workers, contractors, and suppliers to enter and exit the village, this temporary settlement cannot be equated with full acceptance of the RTCs authority, as what actually transpired in Tijam.1avvphi1.zw+ The landmark case of Tijam is, in fact, only an exception to the general rule that an objection to the courts jurisdiction over a case may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, as the lack of jurisdiction affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of a case.17 In that case, the Surety filed a Motion to Dismiss before the CA, raising the question of lack of jurisdiction for the first timefifteen years after the action was commenced in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu. Indeed, in several stages of the proceedings in the CFI, as well as in the CA, the Surety invoked the jurisdiction of said courts to obtain affirmative relief, and even submitted its case for a final adjudication on the merits. Consequently, it was barred by laches from invoking the CFIs lack of jurisdiction. To further highlight the distinction in this case, the TRO hearing was held on February 9, 1999, a day after the filing of the complaint. On even date, the parties reached a temporary settlement reflected in the Undertaking. Fifteen days thereafter, defendants, including Limjoco, filed a Motion to Dismiss. Certainly, this successive and continuous chain of events cannot be characterized as laches as would bar defendants from questioning the RTCs jurisdiction. In fine, based on the allegations contained in Eristingcols complaint, it is the HLURB, not the RTC, which has jurisdiction over this case. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 64642 is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice

23 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 131282 January 4, 2002

Petitioner presented his evidence ex parte on February 13, 1996. On May 8, 1996, judgment was rendered in his favor, and private respondent was ordered to peacefully vacate and turn over Lot No.1065 Cad. 537-D to petitioner; pay petitioner P2,000 annual rental from 1988 up the time he vacates the land, and P5,000 as attorney's fees and the cost of the suit.5 Private respondent received a copy of the decision on May 25, 1996. On June 10, 1996, private respondent filed a Motion for New Trial, alleging that he has been occupying the land as a tenant of Artemio Laurente, Sr., since 1958. He explained that he turned over the complaint and summons to Laurente in the honest belief that as landlord, the latter had a better right to the land and was responsible to defend any adverse claim on it. However, the trial court denied the motion for new trial. Meanwhile, RED Conflict Case No.1029, an administrative case between petitioner and applicant-contestants Romeo, Artemio and Jury Laurente, remained pending with the Office of the Regional Director of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources in Davao City. Eventually, it was forwarded to the DENR Regional Office in Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur . On July 24, 1996, private respondent filed before the RTC a Petition for Relief from Judgment, reiterating the same allegation in his Motion for New Trial. He averred that unless there is a determination on who owned the land, he could not be made to vacate the land. He also averred that the judgment of the trial court was void inasmuch as the heirs of Artemio Laurente, Sr., who are indispensable parties, were not impleaded. On September 24, 1996, Josephine, Ana Soledad and Virginia, all surnamed Laurente, grandchildren of Artemio who were claiming ownership of the land, filed a Motion for Intervention. The RTC denied the motion. On October 8, 1996, the trial court issued an order denying the Petition for Relief from Judgment. In a Motion for Reconsideration of said order, private respondent alleged that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case, since the value of the land was only P5,240 and therefore it was under the jurisdiction of the municipal trial court. On November 22, 1996, the RTC denied the motion for reconsideration. On January 22, 1997, petitioner filed a Motion for Execution, which the RTC granted on January 28. On February 18, 1997, Entry of Judgment was made of record and a writ of execution was issued by the RTC on February 27,1997. On March 12,1997, private respondent filed his petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals gave due course to the petition, maintaining that private respondent is not estopped from assailing the jurisdiction 'of the RTC, Branch 27 in Tandag, Surigao del Sur, when private respondent filed with said court his Motion for

GABRIEL L. DUERO, petitioner, vs. HON.COURT OF APPEALS, and BERNARDO A. ERADEL, respondents. QUISUMBING, J.: This petition for certiorari assails the Decisionl dated September 17, 1997, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. SP No.. 2340- UDK, entitled Bernardo Eradel vs. Non. Ermelino G. Andal, setting aside all proceedings in Civil Case No.1075, Gabriel L. Duero vs. Bernardo Eradel, before the Branch 27 of the Regional Trial Court of Tandag, Surigao del Sur . The pertinent facts are as follow. Sometime in 1988, according to petitioner, private respondent Bemardo Eradel 2 entered and occupied petitioner's land covered by Tax Declaration No. A-16-13-302, located in Baras, San Miguel, Surigao del Sur. As shown in the tax declaration, the land had an assessed value of P5,240. When petitioner politely informed private respondent that the land was his and requested the latter to vacate the land, private respondent refused, but instead threatened him with bodily harm. Despite repeated demands, private respondent remained steadfast in his refusal to leave the land. On June 16, 1995, petitioner filed before the RTC a complaint for Recovery of Possession and Ownership with Damages and Attorney's Fees against private respondent and two others, namely, Apolinario and Inocencio Ruena. Petitioner appended to the complaint the aforementioned tax declaration. The counsel of the Ruenas asked for extension to file their Answer and was given until July 18, 1995. Meanwhile, petitioner and the, Ruenas executed a compromise agreement, which became the trial court's basis for a partial judgment rendered on January 12, 1996. In this agreement, the Ruenas through their counsel, Atty. Eusebio Avila, entered into a Compromise Agreement with herein petitioner, Gabriel Duero. Inter alia, the agreement stated that the Ruenas recognized and bound themselves to respect the ownership and possession of Duero. 3 Herein private respondent Eradel was not a party to the agreement, and he was declared in default for failure to file his answer to the complaint.4

24 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

Reconsideration And/Or Annulment of Judgment. The Court of Appeals decreed as follows: IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Petition is GRANTED. All proceedings in "Gabriel L. Duero vs. Bernardo Eradel, et. al. Civil Case 1075" filed in the Court a quo, including its Decision, Annex "E" of the petition, and its Orders and Writ of Execution and the turn over of the property to the Private Respondent by the Sheriff of the Court a quo, are declared null and void and hereby SET ASIDE, No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.6 Petitioner now comes before this Court, alleging that the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction when it held that: I. ...THE LOWER COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MA TTER OF THE CASE. II ...PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS NOT THEREBY ESTOPPED FROM QUESTIONING THE JURISDICTION OF THE LOWER COURT EVEN AFTER IT SUCCESSFULLY SOUGHT AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF THEREFROM. III ...THE FAlLURE OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT TO FILE HIS ANSWER IS JUSTIFIED. 7 The main issue before us is whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion when it held that the municipal trial court had jurisdiction, and that private respondent was not estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC after he had filed several motions before it. The secondary issue is whether the Court of appeals erred in holding that private respondent's failure to file an answer to the complaint was justified. At the outset, however, we note that petitioner through counsel submitted to this Court pleadings that contain inaccurate statements. Thus, on page 5 of his petition, 8 we find that to bolster the claim that the appellate court erred in holding that the RTC had no jurisdiction, petitioner pointed to Annex E9 of his petition which supposedly is the Certification issued by the Municipal Treasurer of San Miguel, Surigao, specifically containing the notation, "Note: Subject for General Revision Effective 1994." But it appears that Annex E of his petition is not a Certification but a xerox copy of a Declaration of Real Property. Nowhere does the document contain a notation, "Note: Subject for General Revision Effective 1994." Petitioner also asked this Court to refer to Annex F,10 where he said the zonal value of the disputed land was P1.40 per sq.m., thus placing the computed value of the land at the time the complaint was filed before the

RTC at P57,113.98, hence beyond the jurisdiction of the municipal court and within the jurisdiction of the regional trial court. However, we find that these annexes are both merely xerox copies. They are obviously without evidentiary weight or value. Coming now to the principal issue, petitioner contends that respondent appellate court acted with grave abuse of discretion. By "grave abuse of discretion" is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to an excess or a lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.11 But here we find that in its decision holding that the municipal court has jurisdiction over the case and that private respondent was not estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC, respondent Court of Appeals discussed the facts on which its decision is grounded as well as the law and jurisprudence on the matter.12 Its action was neither whimsical nor capricious. Was private respondent estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC? In this case, we are in agreement with the Court of Appeals that he was not. While participation in all stages of a case before the trial court, including invocation of its authority in asking for affirmative relief, effectively bars a party by estoppel from challenging the court's jurisdiction,13 we note that estoppel has become an equitable defense that is both substantive and remedial and its successful invocation can bar a right and not merely its equitable enforcement.14 Hence, estoppel ought to be applied with caution. For estoppel to apply, the action giving rise thereto must be unequivocal and intentional because, if misapplied, estoppel may become a tool of injustice.15 In the present case, private respondent questions the jurisdiction of RTC in Tandag, Surigao del Sur, on legal grounds. Recall that it was petitioner who filed the complaint against private respondent and two other parties before the said court,16 believing that the RTC had jurisdiction over his complaint. But by then, Republic Act 7691 17 amending BP 129 had become effective, such that jurisdiction already belongs not to the RTC but to the MTC pursuant to said amendment. Private respondent, an unschooled farmer, in the mistaken belief that since he was merely a tenant of the late Artemio Laurente Sr., his landlord, gave the summons to a Hipolito Laurente, one of the surviving heirs of Artemio Sr., who did not do anything about the summons. For failure to answer the complaint, private respondent was declared in default. He then filed a Motion for New Trial in the same court and explained that he defaulted because of his belief that the suit ought to be answered by his landlord. In that motion he stated that he had by then the evidence to prove that he had a better right than petitioner over the land because of his long, continuous and uninterrupted possession as bona-fide tenant-lessee of the land.18But his motion was denied. He tried an alternative recourse. He filed before the

25 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

RTC a Motion for Relief from Judgment. Again, the same court denied his motion, hence he moved for reconsideration of the denial. In his Motion for Reconsideration, he raised for the first time the RTC's lack of jurisdiction. This motion was again denied. Note that private respondent raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction, not when the case was already on appeal, but when the case, was still before the RTC that ruled him in default, denied his motion for new trial as well as for relief from judgment, and denied likewise his two motions for reconsideration. After the RTC still refused to reconsider the denial of private respondent's motion for relief from judgment, it went on to issue the order for entry of judgment and a writ of execution. Under these circumstances, we could not fault the Court of Appeals in overruling the RTC and in holding that private respondent was not estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the regional trial court. The fundamental rule is that, the lack of jurisdiction of the court over an action cannot be waived by the parties, or even cured by their silence, acquiescence or even by their express consent. 19 Further, a party may assail the jurisdiction of the court over the action at any stage of the proceedings and even on appeal.20 The appellate court did not err in saying that the RTC should have declared itself barren of jurisdiction over the action. Even if private respondent actively participated in the proceedings before said court, the doctrine of estoppel cannot still be properly invoked against him because the question of lack of jurisdiction may be raised at anytime and at any stage of the action.21 Precedents tell us that as a general rule, the jurisdiction of a court is not a question of acquiescence as a matter of fact, but an issue of conferment as a matter of law.22 Also, neither waiver nor estoppel shall apply to confer jurisdiction upon a court, barring highly meritorious and exceptional circumstances.23 The Court of Appeals found support for its ruling in our decision in Javier vs. Court of Appeals, thus: x x x The point simply is that when a party commits error in filing his suit or proceeding in a court that lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same, such act may not at once be deemed sufficient basis of estoppel. It could have been the result of an honest mistake, or of divergent interpretations of doubtful legal provisions. If any fault is to be imputed to a party taking such course of action, part of the blame should be placed on the court which shall entertain the suit, thereby lulling the parties into believing that they pursued their remedies in the correct forum. Under the rules, it is the duty of the court to dismiss an action 'whenever it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter.' (Sec. 2, Rule 9, Rules of Court) Should the Court render a judgment without jurisdiction, such judgment may be impeached or annulled for lack of jurisdiction (Sec. 30, Rule 132, Ibid), within ten (10) years from the finality of the same. [Emphasis ours.]24

Indeed, "...the trial court was duty-bound to take judicial notice of the parameters of its jurisdiction and its failure to do so, makes its decision a 'lawless' thing." 25 Since a decision of a court without jurisdiction is null and void, it could logically never become final and executory, hence appeal therefrom by writ of error would be out of the question. Resort by private respondent to a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals was in order . In holding that estoppel did not prevent private respondent from questioning the RTC's jurisdiction, the appellate court reiterated the doctrine that estoppel must be applied only in exceptional cases, as its misapplication could result in a miscarriage of justice. Here, we find that petitioner, who claims ownership of a parcel of land, filed his complaint before a court without appropriate jurisdiction. Defendant, a farmer whose tenancy status is still pending before the proper administrative agency concerned, could have moved for dismissal of the case on jurisdictional grounds. But the farmer as defendant therein could not be expected to know the nuances of jurisdiction and related issues. This farmer, who is now the private respondent, ought not to be penalized when he claims that he made an honest mistake when he initially submitted his motions before the RTC, before he realized that the controversy was outside the RTC's cognizance but within the jurisdiction of the municipal trial court. To hold him in estoppel as the RTC did would amount to foreclosing his avenue to obtain a proper resolution of his case. Furthermore, if the RTC's order were to be sustained, he would be evicted from the land prematurely, while RED Conflict Case No.1029 would remain unresolved. Such eviction on a technicality if allowed could result in an injustice, if it is later found that he has a legal right to till the land he now occupies as tenant-lessee. Having determined that there was no grave abuse of discretion by the appellate court in ruling that private respondent was not estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC, we need not tarry to consider in detail the second issue. Suffice it to say that, given the circumstances in this case, no error was committed on this score by respondent appellate court. Since the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case, private respondent had justifiable reason in law not to file an answer, aside from the fact that he believed the suit was properly his landlord's concern. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. The decision of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No.1075 entitled Gabriel L. Duero vs. Bernardo Eradel, its Order that private respondent turn over the disputed land to petitioner, and the Writ of Execution it issued, are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Costs against petitioner . SO ORDERED.Bellosillo, Mendoza, De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur. Buena, J., on official leave.

26 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

SECOND DIVISION [G.R. No. 124644. February 5, 2004] ARNEL ESCOBAL, petitioner, vs. HON. FRANCIS GARCHITORENA, Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan, Atty. Luisabel Alfonso-Cortez, Executive Clerk of Court IV of the Sandiganbayan, Hon. David C. Naval, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Naga City, Branch 21, Luz N. Nueca, respondents. DECISION CALLEJO, SR., J.: This is a petition for certiorari with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction filed by Arnel Escobal seeking the nullification of the remand by the Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan of the records of Criminal Case No. 90-3184 to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City, Branch 21. The petition at bench arose from the following milieu: The petitioner is a graduate of the Philippine Military Academy, a member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine Constabulary, as well as the Intelligence Group of the Philippine National Police. On March 16, 1990, the petitioner was conducting surveillance operations on drug trafficking at the Sa Harong Caf Bar and Restaurant located along Barlin St., Naga City. He somehow got involved in a shooting incident, resulting in the death of one Rodney Rafael N. Nueca. On February 6, 1991, an amended Information was filed with the RTC of Naga City, Branch 21, docketed as Criminal Case No. 90-3184 charging the petitioner and a certain Natividad Bombita, Jr. alias Jun Bombita with murder. The accusatory portion of the amended Information reads: That on or about March 16, 1990, in the City of Naga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court by virtue of the Presidential Waiver, dated June 1, 1990, with intent to kill, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each other, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and maul one Rodney Nueca and accused 2Lt Arnel Escobal armed with a caliber .45 service pistol shoot said Rodney Nueca thereby inflicting upon him serious, mortal and fatal wounds which caused his death, and as a consequence thereof, complainant LUZ N. NUECA, mother of the deceased victim, suffered actual and compensatory damages in the amount of THREE HUNDRED SIXTY-SEVEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVEN & 95/100 (P367,107.95) PESOS, Philippine Currency, and moral and exemplary damages in the amount of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND (P135,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency.

On March 19, 1991, the RTC issued an Order preventively suspending the petitioner from the service under Presidential Decree No. 971, as amended by P.D. No. 1847. When apprised of the said order, the General Headquarters of the PNP issued on October 6, 1992 Special Order No. 91, preventively suspending the petitioner from the service until the case was terminated. The petitioner was arrested by virtue of a warrant issued by the RTC, while accused Bombita remained at large. The petitioner posted bail and was granted temporary liberty. When arraigned on April 9, 1991, the petitioner, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. Thereafter, on December 23, 1991, the petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the Information alleging that as mandated by Commonwealth Act No. 408, in relation to Section 1, Presidential Decree No. 1822 and Section 95 of R.A. No. 6975, the court martial, not the RTC, had jurisdiction over criminal cases involving PNP members and officers. Pending the resolution of the motion, the petitioner on June 25, 1993 requested the Chief of the PNP for his reinstatement. He alleged that under R.A. No. 6975, his suspension should last for only 90 days, and, having served the same, he should now be reinstated. On September 23, 1993, the PNP Region V Headquarters wrote Judge David C. Naval requesting information on whether he issued an order lifting the petitioners suspension. The RTC did not reply. Thus, on February 22, 1994, the petitioner filed a motion in the RTC for the lifting of the order of suspension. He alleged that he had served the 90-day preventive suspension and pleaded for compassionate justice. The RTC denied the motion on March 9, 1994. Trial thereafter proceeded, and the prosecution rested its case. The petitioner commenced the presentation of his evidence. On July 20, 1994, he filed a Motion to Dismiss the case. Citing Republic of the Philippines v. Asuncion, et al., he argued that since he committed the crime in the performance of his duties, the Sandiganbayan had exclusive jurisdiction over the case. On October 28, 1994, the RTC issued an Order denying the motion to dismiss. It, however, ordered the conduct of a preliminary hearing to determine whether or not the crime charged was committed by the petitioner in relation to his office as a member of the PNP. In the preliminary hearing, the prosecution manifested that it was no longer presenting any evidence in connection with the petitioners motion. It reasoned that it had already rested its case, and that its evidence showed that the petitioner did not commit the offense charged in connection with the performance of his duties as a member of the Philippine Constabulary. According to the prosecution, they were able to show the following facts: (a) the petitioner was not wearing his uniform during the incident; (b)

27 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

the offense was committed just after midnight; (c) the petitioner was drunk when the crime was committed; (d) the petitioner was in the company of civilians; and, (e) the offense was committed in a beerhouse called Sa Harong Caf Bar and Restaurant. For his part, the petitioner testified that at about 10:00 p.m. on March 15, 1990, he was at the Sa Harong Caf Bar and Restaurant at Barlin St., Naga City, to conduct surveillance on alleged drug trafficking, pursuant to Mission Order No. 03-04 issued by Police Superintendent Rufo R. Pulido. The petitioner adduced in evidence the sworn statements of Benjamin Cario and Roberto Fajardo who corroborated his testimony that he was on a surveillance mission on the aforestated date. On July 31, 1995, the trial court issued an Order declaring that the petitioner committed the crime charged while not in the performance of his official function. The trial court added that upon the enactment of R.A. No. 7975,] the issue had become moot and academic. The amendatory law transferred the jurisdiction over the offense charged from the Sandiganbayan to the RTC since the petitioner did not have a salary grade of 27 as provided for in or by Section 4(a)(1), (3) thereof. The trial court nevertheless ordered the prosecution to amend the Information pursuant to the ruling in Republic v. Asuncion] and R.A. No. 7975. The amendment consisted in the inclusion therein of an allegation that the offense charged was not committed by the petitioner in the performance of his duties/functions, nor in relation to his office. The petitioner filed a motion for the reconsideration of the said order, reiterating that based on his testimony and those of Benjamin Cario and Roberto Fajardo, the offense charged was committed by him in relation to his official functions. He asserted that the trial court failed to consider the exceptions to the prohibition. He asserted that R.A. No. 7975, which was enacted on March 30, 1995, could not be applied retroactively. The petitioner further alleged that Luz Nacario Nueca, the mother of the victim, through counsel, categorically and unequivocably admitted in her complaint filed with the Peoples Law Enforcement Board (PLEB) that he was on an official mission when the crime was committed. On November 24, 1995, the RTC made a volte face and issued an Order reversing and setting aside its July 31, 1995 Order. It declared that based on the petitioners evidence, he was on official mission when the shooting occurred. It concluded that the prosecution failed to adduce controverting evidence thereto. It likewise considered Luz Nacario Nuecas admission in her complaint before the PLEB that the petitioner was on official mission when the shooting happened. The RTC ordered the public prosecutor to file a Re-Amended Information and to allege that the offense charged was committed by the petitioner in the performance of his

duties/functions or in relation to his office; and, conformably to R.A. No. 7975, to thereafter transmit the same, as well as the complete records with the stenographic notes, to the Sandiganbayan, to wit: WHEREFORE, the Order dated July 31, 1995 is hereby SET ASIDE and RECONSIDERED, and it is hereby declared that after preliminary hearing, this Court has found that the offense charged in the Information herein was committed by the accused in his relation to his function and duty as member of the then Philippine Constabulary. Conformably with R.A. No. 7975 and the ruling of the Supreme Court in Republic v. Asuncion, et al., G.R. No. 180208, March 11, 1994: (1) The City Prosecutor is hereby ordered to file a Re-Amended Information alleging that the offense charged was committed by the Accused in the performance of his duties/functions or in relation to his office, within fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof; (2) After the filing of the Re-Amended Information, the complete records of this case, together with the transcripts of the stenographic notes taken during the entire proceedings herein, are hereby ordered transmitted immediately to the Honorable Sandiganbayan, through its Clerk of Court, Manila, for appropriate proceedings. On January 8, 1996, the Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan ordered the Executive Clerk of Court IV, Atty. Luisabel Alfonso-Cortez, to return the records of Criminal Case No. 90-3184 to the court of origin, RTC of Naga City, Branch 21. It reasoned that under P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 7975, the RTC retained jurisdiction over the case, considering that the petitioner had a salary grade of 23. Furthermore, the prosecution had already rested its case and the petitioner had commenced presenting his evidence in the RTC; following the rule on continuity of jurisdiction, the latter court should continue with the case and render judgment therein after trial. Upon the remand of the records, the RTC set the case for trial on May 3, 1996, for the petitioner to continue presenting his evidence. Instead of adducing his evidence, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, assailing the Order of the Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan remanding the records of the case to the RTC. The threshold issue for resolution is whether or not the Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan committed a grave abuse of his discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in ordering the remand of the case to the RTC. The petitioner contends that when the amended information was filed with the RTC on February 6, 1991, P.D. No. 1606 was still in effect. Under Section 4(a) of the decree, the Sandiganbayan had exclusive jurisdiction over the case against him as he was charged with homicide with the imposable penalty of reclusion temporal, and the crime was

28 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

committed while in the performance of his duties. He further asserts that although P.D. No. 1606, as amended by P.D. No. 1861 and by R.A. No. 7975 provides that crimes committed by members and officers of the PNP with a salary grade below 27 committed in relation to office are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the proper RTC, the amendment thus introduced by R.A. No. 7975 should not be applied retroactively. This is so, the petitioner asserts, because under Section 7 of R.A. No. 7975, only those cases where trial has not begun in the Sandiganbayan upon the effectivity of the law should be referred to the proper trial court. The private complainant agrees with the contention of the petitioner. In contrast, the Office of the Special Prosecutor contends that the Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan acted in accordance with law when he ordered the remand of the case to the RTC. It asserts that R.A. No. 7975 should be applied retroactively. Although the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the crime committed by the petitioner when the amended information was filed with the RTC, by the time it resolved petitioners motion to dismiss on July 31, 1995, R.A. No. 7975 had already taken effect. Thus, the law should be given retroactive effect. The Ruling of the Court The respondent Presiding Justice acted in accordance with law and the rulings of this Court when he ordered the remand of the case to the RTC, the court of origin. The jurisdiction of the court over criminal cases is determined by the allegations in the Information or the Complaint and the statute in effect at the time of the commencement of the action, unless such statute provides for a retroactive application thereof. The jurisdictional requirements must be alleged in the Information. Such jurisdiction of the court acquired at the inception of the case continues until the case is terminated. Under Section 4(a) of P.D. No. 1606 as amended by P.D. No. 1861, the Sandiganbayan had exclusive jurisdiction in all cases involving the following: (1) Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code; (2) Other offenses or felonies committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, whether simple or complexed with other crimes, where the penalty prescribed by law is higher than prision correccional or imprisonment for six (6) years, or a fine of P6,000.00 .

However, for the Sandiganbayan to have exclusive jurisdiction under the said law over crimes committed by public officers in relation to their office, it is essential that the facts showing the intimate relation between the office of the offender and the discharge of official duties must be alleged in the Information. It is not enough to merely allege in the Information that the crime charged was committed by the offender in relation to his office because that would be a conclusion of law. The amended Information filed with the RTC against the petitioner does not contain any allegation showing the intimate relation between his office and the discharge of his duties. Hence, the RTC had jurisdiction over the offense charged when on November 24, 1995, it ordered the reamendment of the Information to include therein an allegation that the petitioner committed the crime in relation to office. The trial court erred when it ordered the elevation of the records to the Sandiganbayan. It bears stressing that R.A. No. 7975 amending P.D. No. 1606 was already in effect and under Section 2 of the law: In cases where none of the principal accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary grade 27 or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or PNP officers occupying the rank of superintendent or higher, or their equivalent, exclusive jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdiction as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. Under the law, even if the offender committed the crime charged in relation to his office but occupies a position corresponding to a salary grade below 27, the proper Regional Trial Court or Municipal Trial Court, as the case may be, shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the case. In this case, the petitioner was a Police Senior Inspector, with salary grade 23. He was charged with homicide punishable by reclusion temporal. Hence, the RTC had exclusive jurisdiction over the crime charged conformably to Sections 20 and 32 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Section 2 of R.A. No. 7691. The petitioners contention that R.A. No. 7975 should not be applied retroactively has no legal basis. It bears stressing that R.A. No. 7975 is a substantive procedural law which may be applied retroactively. IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DISMISSED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Puno, (Chairman), Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, and Tinga, JJ., concur.

29 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 169914 April 18, 2008

ASIA'S EMERGING DRAGON CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, SECRETARY LEANDRO R. MENDOZA and MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, respondents. x ----------------------------------------- x G.R. No. 174166 April 18, 2008

In August 1989, the [Department of Trade and Communications (DOTC)] engaged the services of Aeroport de Paris (ADP) to conduct a comprehensive study of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) and determine whether the present airport can cope with the traffic development up to the year 2010. The study consisted of two parts: first, traffic forecasts, capacity of existing facilities, NAIA future requirements, proposed master plans and development plans; and second, presentation of the preliminary design of the passenger terminal building. The ADP submitted a Draft Final Report to the DOTC in December 1989. Some time in 1993, six business leaders consisting of John Gokongwei, Andrew Gotianun, Henry Sy, Sr., Lucio Tan, George Ty and Alfonso Yuchengco met with then President Fidel V. Ramos to explore the possibility of investing in the construction and operation of a new international airport terminal. To signify their commitment to pursue the project, they formed the Asia's Emerging Dragon Corp. (AEDC) which was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on September 15, 1993. On October 5, 1994, AEDC submitted an unsolicited proposal to the Government through the DOTC/[Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA)] for the development of NAIA International Passenger Terminal III (NAIA IPT III) under a build-operate-andtransfer arrangement pursuant to RA 6957 as amended by RA 7718 (BOT Law). On December 2, 1994, the DOTC issued Dept. Order No. 94-832 constituting the Prequalification Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) for the implementation of the NAIA IPT III project. On March 27, 1995, then DOTC Secretary Jose Garcia endorsed the proposal of AEDC to the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA). A revised proposal, however, was forwarded by the DOTC to NEDA on December 13, 1995. On January 5, 1996, the NEDA Investment Coordinating Council (NEDA ICC) - Technical Board favorably endorsed the project to the ICC - Cabinet Committee which approved the same, subject to certain conditions, on January 19, 1996. On February 13, 1996, the NEDA passed Board Resolution No. 2 which approved the NAIA IPT III project. On June 7, 14, and 21, 1996, DOTC/MIAA caused the publication in two daily newspapers of an invitation for competitive or comparative proposals on AEDC's unsolicited proposal, in accordance with Sec. 4-A of RA 6957, as amended. The alternative bidders were required to submit three (3) sealed envelopes on or before 5:00 p.m. of September 20, 1996. The first envelope should contain the Prequalification Documents, the second envelope the Technical Proposal, and the third envelope the Financial Proposal of the proponent.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS and MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and SALACNIB BATERINA, respondents. DECISION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: This Court is still continuously besieged by Petitions arising from the awarding of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport International Passenger Terminal III (NAIA IPT III) Project to the Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. (PIATCO), despite the promulgation by this Court of Decisions and Resolutions in two cases, Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc.1 and Republic v. Gingoyon,2 which already resolved the more basic and immediate issues arising from the said award. The sheer magnitude of the project, the substantial cost of its building, the expected high profits from its operations, and its remarkable impact on the Philippine economy, consequently raised significant interest in the project from various quarters. Once more, two new Petitions concerning the NAIA IPT III Project are before this Court. It is only appropriate, however, that the Court first recounts its factual and legal findings in Agan and Gingoyon to ascertain that its ruling in the Petitions at bar shall be consistent and in accordance therewith. Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. (G.R. Nos. 155001, 155547, and 155661) Already established and incontrovertible are the following facts in Agan:

30 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

On June 20, 1996, PBAC Bulletin No. 1 was issued, postponing the availment of the Bid Documents and the submission of the comparative bid proposals. Interested firms were permitted to obtain the Request for Proposal Documents beginning June 28, 1996, upon submission of a written application and payment of a non-refundable fee of P50,000.00 (US$2,000). The Bid Documents issued by the PBAC provided among others that the proponent must have adequate capability to sustain the financing requirement for the detailed engineering, design, construction, operation, and maintenance phases of the project. The proponent would be evaluated based on its ability to provide a minimum amount of equity to the project, and its capacity to secure external financing for the project. On July 23, 1996, the PBAC issued PBAC Bulletin No. 2 inviting all bidders to a pre-bid conference on July 29, 1996. On August 16, 1996, the PBAC issued PBAC Bulletin No. 3 amending the Bid Documents. The following amendments were made on the Bid Documents: a. Aside from the fixed Annual Guaranteed Payment, the proponent shall include in its financial proposal an additional percentage of gross revenue share of the Government, as follows: i. ii. iii. First 5 years Next 10 years Next 10 years 5.0% 7.5% 10.0%

d. The basis for the prequalification shall be the proponent's compliance with the minimum technical and financial requirements provided in the Bid Documents and the [Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)] of the BOT Law. The minimum amount of equity shall be 30% of the Project Cost. e. Amendments to the draft Concession Agreement shall be issued from time to time. Said amendments shall only cover items that would not materially affect the preparation of the proponent's proposal. On August 29, 1996, the Second Pre-Bid Conference was held where certain clarifications were made. Upon the request of prospective bidder People's Air Cargo & Warehousing Co., Inc (Paircargo), the PBAC warranted that based on Sec. 11.6, Rule 11 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the BOT Law, only the proposed Annual Guaranteed Payment submitted by the challengers would be revealed to AEDC, and that the challengers' technical and financial proposals would remain confidential. The PBAC also clarified that the list of revenue sources contained in Annex 4.2a of the Bid Documents was merely indicative and that other revenue sources may be included by the proponent, subject to approval by DOTC/MIAA. Furthermore, the PBAC clarified that only those fees and charges denominated as Public Utility Fees would be subject to regulation, and those charges which would be actually deemed Public Utility Fees could still be revised, depending on the outcome of PBAC's query on the matter with the Department of Justice. In September 1996, the PBAC issued Bid Bulletin No. 5, entitled "Answers to the Queries of PAIRCARGO as Per Letter Dated September 3 and 10, 1996." Paircargo's queries and the PBAC's responses were as follows: 1. It is difficult for Paircargo and Associates to meet the required minimum equity requirement as prescribed in Section 8.3.4 of the Bid Documents considering that the capitalization of each member company is so structured to meet the requirements and needs of their current respective business undertaking/activities. In order to comply with this equity requirement, Paircargo is requesting PBAC to just allow each member of (sic) corporation of the Joint Venture to just execute an agreement that embodies a commitment to infuse the required capital in case the project is awarded to the Joint Venture instead of increasing each corporation's current authorized capital stock just for prequalification purposes. In prequalification, the agency is interested in one's financial capability at the time of prequalification, not future or potential capability. A commitment to put up equity once awarded the project is not enough to establish that "present" financial capability. However, total financial capability of all member

b. The amount of the fixed Annual Guaranteed Payment shall be subject of the price challenge. Proponent may offer an Annual Guaranteed Payment which need not be of equal amount, but payment of which shall start upon site possession. c. The project proponent must have adequate capability to sustain the financing requirement for the detailed engineering, design, construction, and/or operation and maintenance phases of the project as the case may be. For purposes of prequalification, this capability shall be measured in terms of: i. Proof of the availability of the project proponent and/or the consortium to provide the minimum amount of equity for the project; and ii. a letter testimonial from reputable banks attesting that the project proponent and/or the members of the consortium are banking with them, that the project proponent and/or the members are of good financial standing, and have adequate resources.

31 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

companies of the Consortium, to be established by submitting the respective companies' audited financial statements, shall be acceptable. 2. At present, Paircargo is negotiating with banks and other institutions for the extension of a Performance Security to the joint venture in the event that the Concessions Agreement (sic) is awarded to them. However, Paircargo is being required to submit a copy of the draft concession as one of the documentary requirements. Therefore, Paircargo is requesting that they'd (sic) be furnished copy of the approved negotiated agreement between the PBAC and the AEDC at the soonest possible time. A copy of the draft Concession Agreement is included in the Bid Documents. Any material changes would be made known to prospective challengers through bid bulletins. However, a final version will be issued before the award of contract. The PBAC also stated that it would require AEDC to sign Supplement C of the Bid Documents (Acceptance of Criteria and Waiver of Rights to Enjoin Project) and to submit the same with the required Bid Security. On September 20, 1996, the consortium composed of People's Air Cargo and Warehousing Co., Inc. (Paircargo), Phil. Air and Grounds Services, Inc. (PAGS) and Security Bank Corp. (Security Bank) (collectively, Paircargo Consortium) submitted their competitive proposal to the PBAC. On September 23, 1996, the PBAC opened the first envelope containing the prequalification documents of the Paircargo Consortium. On the following day, September 24, 1996, the PBAC prequalified the Paircargo Consortium. On September 26, 1996, AEDC informed the PBAC in writing of its reservations as regards the Paircargo Consortium, which include: a. The lack of corporate approvals and financial capability of PAIRCARGO; b. The lack of corporate approvals and financial capability of PAGS; c. The prohibition imposed by RA 337, as amended (the General Banking Act) on the amount that Security Bank could legally invest in the project; d. The inclusion of Siemens as a contractor of the PAIRCARGO Joint Venture, for prequalification purposes; and e. The appointment of Lufthansa as the facility operator, in view of the Philippine requirement in the operation of a public utility. The PBAC gave its reply on October 2, 1996, informing AEDC that it had considered the issues raised by the latter, and that based on the documents submitted by Paircargo and the established prequalification criteria, the PBAC had found that the challenger,

Paircargo, had prequalified to undertake the project. The Secretary of the DOTC approved the finding of the PBAC. The PBAC then proceeded with the opening of the second envelope of the Paircargo Consortium which contained its Technical Proposal. On October 3, 1996, AEDC reiterated its objections, particularly with respect to Paircargo's financial capability, in view of the restrictions imposed by Section 21-B of the General Banking Act and Sections 1380 and 1381 of the Manual Regulations for Banks and Other Financial Intermediaries. On October 7, 1996, AEDC again manifested its objections and requested that it be furnished with excerpts of the PBAC meeting and the accompanying technical evaluation report where each of the issues they raised were addressed. On October 16, 1996, the PBAC opened the third envelope submitted by AEDC and the Paircargo Consortium containing their respective financial proposals. Both proponents offered to build the NAIA Passenger Terminal III for at least $350 million at no cost to the government and to pay the government: 5% share in gross revenues for the first five years of operation, 7.5% share in gross revenues for the next ten years of operation, and 10% share in gross revenues for the last ten years of operation, in accordance with the Bid Documents. However, in addition to the foregoing, AEDC offered to pay the government a total of P135 million as guaranteed payment for 27 years while Paircargo Consortium offered to pay the government a total of P17.75 billion for the same period. Thus, the PBAC formally informed AEDC that it had accepted the price proposal submitted by the Paircargo Consortium, and gave AEDC 30 working days or until November 28, 1996 within which to match the said bid, otherwise, the project would be awarded to Paircargo. As AEDC failed to match the proposal within the 30-day period, then DOTC Secretary Amado Lagdameo, on December 11, 1996, issued a notice to Paircargo Consortium regarding AEDC's failure to match the proposal. On February 27, 1997, Paircargo Consortium incorporated into Philippine International Airport Terminals Co., Inc. (PIATCO). AEDC subsequently protested the alleged undue preference given to PIATCO and reiterated its objections as regards the prequalification of PIATCO. On April 11, 1997, the DOTC submitted the concession agreement for the second-pass approval of the NEDA-ICC. On April 16, 1997, AEDC filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of the Proceedings, Mandamus and Injunction against the

32 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

Secretary of the DOTC, the Chairman of the PBAC, the voting members of the PBAC and Pantaleon D. Alvarez, in his capacity as Chairman of the PBAC Technical Committee. xxxx On July 9, 1997, the DOTC issued the notice of award for the project to PIATCO. On July 12, 1997, the Government, through then DOTC Secretary Arturo T. Enrile, and PIATCO, through its President, Henry T. Go, signed the "Concession Agreement for the Build-Operate-and-Transfer Arrangement of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Passenger Terminal III" (1997 Concession Agreement). x x x. On November 26, 1998, the Government and PIATCO signed an Amended and Restated Concession Agreement (ARCA). x x x. Subsequently, the Government and PIATCO signed three Supplements to the ARCA. The First Supplement was signed on August 27, 1999; the Second Supplement on September 4, 2000; and the Third Supplement on June 22, 2001 (collectively, Supplements). xxxx Meanwhile, the MIAA which is charged with the maintenance and operation of the NAIA Terminals I and II, had existing concession contracts with various service providers to offer international airline airport services, such as in-flight catering, passenger handling, ramp and ground support, aircraft maintenance and provisions, cargo handling and warehousing, and other services, to several international airlines at the NAIA. x x x. On September 17, 2002, the workers of the international airline service providers, claiming that they stand to lose their employment upon the implementation of the questioned agreements, filed before this Court a petition for prohibition to enjoin the enforcement of said agreements. On October 15, 2002, the service providers, joining the cause of the petitioning workers, filed a motion for intervention and a petition-in-intervention. On October 24, 2002, Congressmen Salacnib Baterina, Clavel Martinez and Constantino Jaraula filed a similar petition with this Court. On November 6, 2002, several employees of the MIAA likewise filed a petition assailing the legality of the various agreements. On December 11, 2002, another group of Congressmen, Hon. Jacinto V. Paras, Rafael P. Nantes, Eduardo C. Zialcita, Willie B. Villarama, Prospero C. Nograles, Prospero A. Pichay, Jr., Harlin Cast Abayon and Benasing O. Macaranbon, moved to intervene in the case as Respondents-Intervenors. They filed their Comment-In-Intervention defending the validity of the assailed agreements and praying for the dismissal of the petitions.

During the pendency of the case before this Court, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, on November 29, 2002, in her speech at the 2002 Golden Shell Export Awards at Malacaang Palace, stated that she will not "honor (PIATCO) contracts which the Executive Branch's legal offices have concluded (as) null and void."3 The Court first dispensed with the procedural issues raised in Agan, ruling that (a) the MIAA service providers and its employees, petitioners in G.R. Nos. 155001 and 155661, had the requisite standing since they had a direct and substantial interest to protect by reason of the implementation of the PIATCO Contracts which would affect their source of livelihood;4 and (b) the members of the House of Representatives, petitioners in G.R. No. 155547, were granted standing in view of the serious legal questions involved and their impact on public interest.5 As to the merits of the Petitions in Agan, the Court concluded that: In sum, this Court rules that in view of the absence of the requisite financial capacity of the Paircargo Consortium, predecessor of respondent PIATCO, the award by the PBAC of the contract for the construction, operation and maintenance of the NAIA IPT III is null and void. Further, considering that the 1997 Concession Agreement contains material and substantial amendments, which amendments had the effect of converting the 1997 Concession Agreement into an entirely different agreement from the contract bidded upon, the 1997 Concession Agreement is similarly null and void for being contrary to public policy. The provisions under Sections 4.04(b) and (c) in relation to Section 1.06 of the 1997 Concession Agreement and Section 4.04(c) in relation to Section 1.06 of the ARCA, which constitute a direct government guarantee expressly prohibited by, among others, the BOT Law and its Implementing Rules and Regulations are also null and void. The Supplements, being accessory contracts to the ARCA, are likewise null and void. 6 Hence, the fallo of the Court's Decision in Agan reads: WHEREFORE, the 1997 Concession Agreement, the Amended and Restated Concession Agreement and the Supplements thereto are set aside for being null and void. 7 In a Resolution8 dated 21 January 2004, the Court denied with finality the Motions for Reconsideration of its 5 May 2003 Decision in Agan filed by therein respondents PIATCO and Congressmen Paras, et al., and respondents-intervenors.9 Significantly, the Court declared in the same Resolution that: This Court, however, is not unmindful of the reality that the structures comprising the NAIA IPT III facility are almost complete and that funds have been spent by PIATCO in their construction. For the government to take over the said facility, it has to compensate respondent PIATCO as builder of the said structures. The compensation

33 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

must be just and in accordance with law and equity for the government can not unjustly enrich itself at the expense of PIATCO and its investors.10 (Emphasis ours.) It is these afore-quoted pronouncements that gave rise to the Petition in Gingoyon. Republic v. Gingoyon (G.R. No. 166429) According to the statement of facts in Gingoyon: After the promulgation of the rulings in Agan, the NAIA 3 facilities have remained in the possession of PIATCO, despite the avowed intent of the Government to put the airport terminal into immediate operation. The Government and PIATCO conducted several rounds of negotiation regarding the NAIA 3 facilities. It also appears that arbitral proceedings were commenced before the International Chamber of Commerce International Court of Arbitration and the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, although the Government has raised jurisdictional questions before those two bodies. Then, on 21 December 2004, the Government filed a Complaint for expropriation with the Pasay City Regional Trial Court (RTC), together with an Application for Special Raffle seeking the immediate holding of a special raffle. The Government sought upon the filing of the complaint the issuance of a writ of possession authorizing it to take immediate possession and control over the NAIA 3 facilities. The Government also declared that it had deposited the amount of P3,002,125,000.00 (3 Billion) in Cash with the Land Bank of the Philippines, representing the NAIA 3 terminal's assessed value for taxation purposes. The case was raffled to Branch 117 of the Pasay City RTC, presided by respondent judge Hon. Henrick F. Gingoyon (Hon. Gingoyon). On the same day that the Complaint was filed, the RTC issued an Order directing the issuance of a writ of possession to the Government, authorizing it to "take or enter upon the possession" of the NAIA 3 facilities. Citing the case of City of Manila v. Serrano, the RTC noted that it had the ministerial duty to issue the writ of possession upon the filing of a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance, and upon deposit made by the government of the amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property subject to expropriation. The RTC found these requisites present, particularly noting that "[t]he case record shows that [the Government has] deposited the assessed value of the [NAIA 3 facilities] in the Land Bank of the Philippines, an authorized depositary, as shown by the certification attached to their complaint." Also on the same day, the RTC issued a Writ of Possession. According to PIATCO, the Government was able to take possession over the NAIA 3 facilities immediately after the Writ of Possession was issued.

However, on 4 January 2005, the RTC issued another Order designed to supplement its 21 December 2004 Order and the Writ of Possession. In the 4 January 2005 Order, now assailed in the present petition, the RTC noted that its earlier issuance of its writ of possession was pursuant to Section 2, Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. However, it was observed that Republic Act No. 8974 (Rep. Act No. 8974), otherwise known as "An Act to Facilitate the Acquisition of Right-of-Way, Site or Location for National Government Infrastructure Projects and For Other Purposes" and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (Implementing Rules) had amended Rule 67 in many respects. There are at least two crucial differences between the respective procedures under Rep. Act No. 8974 and Rule 67. Under the statute, the Government is required to make immediate payment to the property owner upon the filing of the complaint to be entitled to a writ of possession, whereas in Rule 67, the Government is required only to make an initial deposit with an authorized government depositary. Moreover, Rule 67 prescribes that the initial deposit be equivalent to the assessed value of the property for purposes of taxation, unlike Rep. Act No. 8974 which provides, as the relevant standard for initial compensation, the market value of the property as stated in the tax declaration or the current relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), whichever is higher, and the value of the improvements and/or structures using the replacement cost method. Accordingly, on the basis of Sections 4 and 7 of Rep. Act No. 8974 and Section 10 of the Implementing Rules, the RTC made key qualifications to its earlier issuances. First, it directed the Land Bank of the Philippines, Baclaran Branch (LBP-Baclaran), to immediately release the amount of US$62,343,175.77 to PIATCO, an amount which the RTC characterized as that which the Government "specifically made available for the purpose of this expropriation;" and such amount to be deducted from the amount of just compensation due PIATCO as eventually determined by the RTC. Second, the Government was directed to submit to the RTC a Certificate of Availability of Funds signed by authorized officials to cover the payment of just compensation. Third, the Government was directed "to maintain, preserve and safeguard" the NAIA 3 facilities or "perform such as acts or activities in preparation for their direct operation" of the airport terminal, pending expropriation proceedings and full payment of just compensation. However, the Government was prohibited "from performing acts of ownership like awarding concessions or leasing any part of [NAIA 3] to other parties." The very next day after the issuance of the assailed 4 January 2005 Order, the Government filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, which was set for hearing on 10 January 2005. On 7 January 2005, the RTC issued another Order, the second now assailed before this Court, which appointed three (3) Commissioners to ascertain the

34 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

amount of just compensation for the NAIA 3 Complex. That same day, the Government filed a Motion for Inhibition of Hon. Gingoyon. The RTC heard the Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Inhibition on 10 January 2005. On the same day, it denied these motions in an Omnibus Order dated 10 January 2005. This is the third Order now assailed before this Court. Nonetheless, while the Omnibus Order affirmed the earlier dispositions in the 4 January 2005 Order, it excepted from affirmance "the superfluous part of the Order prohibiting the plaintiffs from awarding concessions or leasing any part of [NAIA 3] to other parties." Thus, the present Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 was filed on 13 January 2005. The petition prayed for the nullification of the RTC orders dated 4 January 2005, 7 January 2005, and 10 January 2005, and for the inhibition of Hon. Gingoyon from taking further action on the expropriation case. A concurrent prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction was granted by this Court in a Resolution dated 14 January 2005.11 The Court resolved the Petition of the Republic of the Philippines and Manila International Airport Authority in Gingoyon in this wise: In conclusion, the Court summarizes its rulings as follows: (1) The 2004 Resolution in Agan sets the base requirement that has to be observed before the Government may take over the NAIA 3, that there must be payment to PIATCO of just compensation in accordance with law and equity. Any ruling in the present expropriation case must be conformable to the dictates of the Court as pronounced in the Agan cases. (2) Rep. Act No. 8974 applies in this case, particularly insofar as it requires the immediate payment by the Government of at least the proffered value of the NAIA 3 facilities to PIATCO and provides certain valuation standards or methods for the determination of just compensation. (3) Applying Rep. Act No. 8974, the implementation of Writ of Possession in favor of the Government over NAIA 3 is held in abeyance until PIATCO is directly paid the amount of P3 Billion, representing the proffered value of NAIA 3 under Section 4(c) of the law. (4) Applying Rep. Act No. 8974, the Government is authorized to start the implementation of the NAIA 3 Airport terminal project by performing the acts that are essential to the operation of the NAIA 3 as an international airport terminal upon the effectivity of the Writ of Possession, subject to the conditions above-stated. As prescribed by the Court, such authority encompasses "the repair, reconditioning and improvement of the complex, maintenance of the existing facilities and equipment, installation of new facilities and equipment, provision of services and facilities

pertaining to the facilitation of air traffic and transport, and other services that are integral to a modern-day international airport." 5) The RTC is mandated to complete its determination of the just compensation within sixty (60) days from finality of this Decision. In doing so, the RTC is obliged to comply with the standards set under Rep. Act No. 8974 and its Implementing Rules. Considering that the NAIA 3 consists of structures and improvements, the valuation thereof shall be determined using the replacements cost method, as prescribed under Section 10 of the Implementing Rules. (6) There was no grave abuse of discretion attending the RTC Order appointing the commissioners for the purpose of determining just compensation. The provisions on commissioners under Rule 67 shall apply insofar as they are not inconsistent with Rep. Act No. 8974, its Implementing Rules, or the rulings of the Court in Agan. (7) The Government shall pay the just compensation fixed in the decision of the trial court to PIATCO immediately upon the finality of the said decision. (8) There is no basis for the Court to direct the inhibition of Hon. Gingoyon. All told, the Court finds no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC to warrant the nullification of the questioned orders. Nonetheless, portions of these orders should be modified to conform with law and the pronouncements made by the Court herein. 12 The decretal portion of the Court's Decision in Gingoyon thus reads: WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED in PART with respect to the orders dated 4 January 2005 and 10 January 2005 of the lower court. Said orders are AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS: 1) The implementation of the Writ of Possession dated 21 December 2004 is HELD IN ABEYANCE, pending payment by petitioners to PIATCO of the amount of Three Billion Two Million One Hundred Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P3,002,125,000.00), representing the proffered value of the NAIA 3 facilities; 2) Petitioners, upon the effectivity of the Writ of Possession, are authorized [to] start the implementation of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Pasenger Terminal III project by performing the acts that are essential to the operation of the said International Airport Passenger Terminal project; 3) RTC Branch 117 is hereby directed, within sixty (60) days from finality of this Decision, to determine the just compensation to be paid to PIATCO by the Government.

35 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

The Order dated 7 January 2005 is AFFIRMED in all respects subject to the qualification that the parties are given ten (10) days from finality of this Decision to file, if they so choose, objections to the appointment of the commissioners decreed therein. The Temporary Restraining Order dated 14 January 2005 is hereby LIFTED. No pronouncement as to costs.13 Motions for Partial Reconsideration of the foregoing Decision were filed by therein petitioners Republic and MIAA, as well as the three other parties who sought to intervene, namely, Asakihosan Corporation, Takenaka Corporation, and Congressman Baterina. In a Resolution dated 1 February 2006, this Court denied with finality the Motion for Partial Reconsideration of therein petitioners and remained faithful to its assailed Decision based on the following ratiocination: Admittedly, the 2004 Resolution in Agan could be construed as mandating the full payment of the final amount of just compensation before the Government may be permitted to take over the NAIA 3. However, the Decision ultimately rejected such a construction, acknowledging the public good that would result from the immediate operation of the NAIA 3. Instead, the Decision adopted an interpretation which is in consonance with Rep. Act No. 8974 and with equitable standards as well, that allowed the Government to take possession of the NAIA 3 after payment of the proffered value of the facilities to PIATCO. Such a reading is substantially compliant with the pronouncement in the 2004 Agan Resolution, and is in accord with law and equity. In contrast, the Government's position, hewing to the strict application of Rule 67, would permit the Government to acquire possession over the NAIA 3 and implement its operation without having to pay PIATCO a single centavo, a situation that is obviously unfair. Whatever animosity the Government may have towards PIATCO does not acquit it from settling its obligations to the latter, particularly those which had already been previously affirmed by this Court.14 The Court, in the same Resolution, denied all the three motions for intervention of Asakihosan Corporation, Takenaka Corporation, and Congressman Baterina, and ruled as follows: We now turn to the three (3) motions for intervention all of which were filed after the promulgation of the Court's Decision. All three (3) motions must be denied. Under Section 2, Rule 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure the motion to intervene may be filed at any time before rendition of judgment by the court. Since this case originated from an original action filed before this Court, the appropriate time to file the motionsin-intervention in this case if ever was before and not after resolution of this case. To

allow intervention at this juncture would be highly irregular. It is extremely improbable that the movants were unaware of the pendency of the present case before the Court, and indeed none of them allege such lack of knowledge. Takenaka and Asahikosan rely on Mago v. Court of Appeals wherein the Court took the extraordinary step of allowing the motion for intervention even after the challenged order of the trial court had already become final. Yet it was apparent in Mago that the movants therein were not impleaded despite being indispensable parties, and had not even known of the existence of the case before the trial court, and the effect of the final order was to deprive the movants of their land. In this case, neither Takenaka nor Asahikosan stand to be dispossessed by reason of the Court's Decision. There is no palpable due process violation that would militate the suspension of the procedural rule. Moreover, the requisite legal interest required of a party-in-intervention has not been established so as to warrant the extra-ordinary step of allowing intervention at this late stage. As earlier noted, the claims of Takenaka and Asahikosan have not been judicially proved or conclusively established as fact by any trier of facts in this jurisdiction. Certainly, they could not be considered as indispensable parties to the petition for certiorari. In the case of Representative Baterina, he invokes his prerogative as legislator to curtail the disbursement without appropriation of public funds to compensate PIATCO, as well as that as a taxpayer, as the basis of his legal standing to intervene. However, it should be noted that the amount which the Court directed to be paid by the Government to PIATCO was derived from the money deposited by the Manila International Airport Authority, an agency which enjoys corporate autonomy and possesses a legal personality separate and distinct from those of the National Government and agencies thereof whose budgets have to be approved by Congress. It is also observed that the interests of the movants-in-intervention may be duly litigated in proceedings which are extant before lower courts. There is no compelling reason to disregard the established rules and permit the interventions belatedly filed after the promulgation of the Court's Decision.15 Asia's Emerging Dragon Corporation v. Department of Transportation and Communications and Manila International Airport Authority (G.R. No. 169914) Banking on this Court's declaration in Agan that the award of the NAIA IPT III Project to PIATCO is null and void, Asia's Emerging Dragon Corporation (AEDC) filed before this Court the present Petition for Mandamus and Prohibition (with Application for Temporary Restraining Order), praying of this Court that:

36 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

(1) After due hearing, judgment be rendered commanding the Respondents, their officers, agents, successors, representatives or persons or entities acting on their behalf, to formally award the NAIA-APT [sic] III PROJECT to Petitioner AEDC and to execute and formalize with Petitioner AEDC the approved Draft Concession Agreement embodying the agreed terms and conditions for the operation of the NAIA-IPT III Project and directing Respondents to cease and desist from awarding the NAIA-IPT Project to third parties or negotiating into any concession contract with third parties. (2) Pending resolution on the merits, a Temporary Restraining Order be issued enjoining Respondents, their officers, agents, successors or representatives or persons or entities acting on their behalf from negotiating, re-bidding, awarding or otherwise entering into any concession contract with PIATCO and other third parties for the operation of the NAIA-IPT III Project. Other relief and remedies, just and equitable under the premises, are likewise prayed for.16 AEDC bases its Petition on the following grounds: I. PETITIONER AEDC, BEING THE RECOGNIZED AND UNCHALLENGED ORIGINAL PROPONENT, HAS THE EXCLUSIVE, CLEAR AND VESTED STATUTORY RIGHT TO THE AWARD OF THE NAIA-IPT III PROJECT; II. RESPONDENTS HAVE A STATUTORY DUTY TO PROTECT PETITIONER AEDC AS THE UNCHALLENGED ORIGINAL PROPONENT AS A RESULT OF THE SUPREME COURT'S NULLIFICATION OF THE AWARD OF THE NAIA-IPT III PROJECT TO PIATCO[; and] III. RESPONDENTS HAVE NO LEGAL BASIS OR AUTHORITY TO TAKE OVER THE NAIA-IPT III PROJECT, TO THE EXCLUSION OF PETITIONER AEDC, OR TO AWARD THE PROJECT TO THIRD PARTIES.17 At the crux of the Petition of AEDC is its claim that, being the recognized and unchallenged original proponent of the NAIA IPT III Project, it has the exclusive, clear, and vested statutory right to the award thereof. However, the Petition of AEDC should be dismissed for lack of merit, being as it is, substantially and procedurally flawed. SUBSTANTIVE INFIRMITY A petition for mandamus is governed by Section 3 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which reads SEC. 3. Petition for mandamus. When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no

other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent. It is well-established in our jurisprudence that only specific legal rights are enforceable by mandamus, that the right sought to be enforced must be certain and clear, and that the writ will not issue in cases where the right is doubtful. Just as fundamental is the principle governing the issuance of mandamus that the duties to be performed must be such as are clearly and peremptorily enjoined by law or by reason of official station. 18 A rule long familiar is that mandamus never issues in doubtful cases. It requires a showing of a complete and clear legal right in the petitioner to the performance of ministerial acts. In varying language, the principle echoed and reechoed is that legal rights may be enforced by mandamus only if those rights are well-defined, clear and certain. Otherwise, the mandamus petition must be dismissed.19 The right that AEDC is seeking to enforce is supposedly enjoined by Section 4-A of Republic Act No. 6957,20 as amended by Republic Act No. 7718, on unsolicited proposals, which provides SEC. 4-A. Unsolicited proposals. Unsolicited proposals for projects may be accepted by any government agency or local government unit on a negotiated basis: Provided, That, all the following conditions are met: (1) such projects involve a new concept or technology and/or are not part of the list of priority projects, (2) no direct government guarantee, subsidy or equity is required, and (3) the government agency or local government unit has invited by publication, for three (3) consecutive weeks, in a newspaper of general circulation, comparative or competitive proposals and no other proposal is received for a period of sixty (60) working days: Provided, further, That in the event another proponent submits a lower price proposal, the original proponent shall have the right to match the price within thirty (30) working days. In furtherance of the afore-quoted provision, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 6957, as amended by Republic Act No. 7718, devoted the entire Rule 10 to Unsolicited Proposals, pertinent portions of which are reproduced below Sec. 10.1. Requisites for Unsolicited Proposals. Any Agency/LGU may accept unsolicited proposals on a negotiated basis provided that all the following conditions are met:

37 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

a. the project involves a new concept or technology and/or is not part of the list of priority projects; b. no direct government guarantee, subsidy or equity is required; and c. the Agency/LGU concerned has invited by publication, for three (3) consecutive weeks, in a newspaper of general circulation, comparative or competitive proposals and no other proposal is received for a period of sixty (60) working days. In the event that another project proponent submits a price proposal lower than that submitted by the original proponent, the latter shall have the right to match said price proposal within thirty (30) working days. Should the original proponent fail to match the lower price proposal submitted within the specified period, the contract shall be awarded to the tenderer of the lowest price. On the other hand, if the original project proponent matches the submitted lowest price within the specified period, he shall be immediately be awarded the project. xxxx Sec. 10.6. Evaluation of Unsolicited Proposals. The Agency/LGU is tasked with the initial evaluation of the proposal. The Agency/LGU shall: 1) appraise the merits of the project; 2) evaluate the qualification of the proponent; and 3) assess the appropriateness of the contractual arrangement and reasonableness of the risk allocation. The Agency/LGU is given sixty (60) days to evaluate the proposal from the date of submission of the complete proposal. Within this 60-day period, the Agency/LGU, shall advise the proponent in writing whether it accepts or rejects the proposal. Acceptance means commitment of the Agency/LGU to pursue the project and recognition of the proponent as the "original proponent." At this point, the Agency/LGU will no longer entertain other similar proposals until the solicitation of comparative proposals. The implementation of the project, however, is still contingent primarily on the approval of the appropriate approving authorities consistent with Section 2.7 of these IRR, the agreement between the original proponent and the Agency/LGU of the contract terms, and the approval of the contract by the [Investment Coordination Committee (ICC)] or Local Sanggunian. xxxx Sec. 10.9. Negotiation With the Original Proponent. Immediately after ICC/Local Sanggunian's clearance of the project, the Agency/LGU shall proceed with the indepth negotiation of the project scope, implementation arrangements and concession agreement, all of which will be used in the Terms of Reference for the solicitation of comparative proposals. The Agency/LGU and the proponent are given ninety (90) days upon receipt of ICC's approval of the project to conclude negotiations. The Agency/LGU

and the original proponent shall negotiate in good faith. However, should there be unresolvable differences during the negotiations, the Agency/LGU shall have the option to reject the proposal and bid out the project. On the other hand, if the negotiation is successfully concluded, the original proponent shall then be required to reformat and resubmit its proposal in accordance with the requirements of the Terms of Reference to facilitate comparison with the comparative proposals. The Agency/LGU shall validate the reformatted proposal if it meets the requirements of the TOR prior to the issuance of the invitation for comparative proposals. xxxx Sec. 10.11. Invitation for Comparative Proposals. The Agency/LGU shall publish the invitation for comparative or competitive proposals only after ICC/Local Sanggunian issues a no objection clearance of the draft contract. The invitation for comparative or competitive proposals should be published at least once every week for three (3) weeks in at least one (1) newspaper of general circulation. It shall indicate the time, which should not be earlier than the last date of publication, and place where tender/bidding documents could be obtained. It shall likewise explicitly specify a time of sixty (60) working days reckoned from the date of issuance of the tender/bidding documents upon which proposals shall be received. Beyond said deadline, no proposals shall be accepted. A pre-bid conference shall be conducted ten (10) working days after the issuance of the tender/bidding documents. Sec. 10.12. Posting of Bid Bond by Original Proponent. The original proponent shall be required at the date of the first date of the publication of the invitation for comparative proposals to submit a bid bond equal to the amount and in the form required of the challengers. Sec. 10.13. Simultaneous Qualification of the Original Proponent. The Agency/LGU shall qualify the original proponent based on the provisions of Rule 5 hereof, within thirty (30) days from start of negotiation. For consistency, the evaluation criteria used for qualifying the original proponent should be the same criteria used for qualifying the original proponent should be the criteria used in the Terms of Reference for the challengers. xxxx Sec. 10.16. Disclosure of the Price Proposal. The disclosure of the price proposal of the original proponent in the Tender Documents will be left to the discretion of the Agency/LGU. However, if it was not disclosed in the Tender Documents, the original proponent's price proposal should be revealed upon the opening of the financial proposals of the challengers. The right of the original proponent to match the best

38 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

proposal within thirty (30) working days starts upon official notification by the Agency/LGU of the most advantageous financial proposal. (Emphasis ours.) In her sponsorship speech on Senate Bill No. 1586 (the precursor of Republic Act No. 7718), then Senator (now President of the Republic of the Philippines) Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo explained the reason behind the proposed amendment that would later become Section 4-A of Republic Act No. 6957, as amended by Republic Act No. 7718: The object of the amendment is to protect proponents which have already incurred costs in the conceptual design and in the preparation of the proposal, and which may have adopted an imaginative method of construction or innovative concept for the proposal. The amendment also aims to harness the ingenuity of the private sector to come up with solutions to the country's infrastructure problems. 21 It is irrefragable that Section 4-A of Republic Act No. 6957, as amended by Republic Act No. 7718, and Section 10 of its IRR, accord certain rights or privileges to the original proponent of an unsolicited proposal for an infrastructure project. They are meant to encourage private sector initiative in conceptualizing infrastructure projects that would benefit the public. Nevertheless, none of these rights or privileges would justify the automatic award of the NAIA IPT III Project to AEDC after its previous award to PIATCO was declared null and void by this Court in Agan. The rights or privileges of an original proponent of an unsolicited proposal for an infrastructure project are never meant to be absolute. Otherwise, the original proponent can hold the Government hostage and secure the award of the infrastructure project based solely on the fact that it was the first to submit a proposal. The absurdity of such a situation becomes even more apparent when considering that the proposal is unsolicited by the Government. The rights or privileges of an original proponent depends on compliance with the procedure and conditions explicitly provided by the statutes and their IRR. An unsolicited proposal is subject to evaluation, after which, the government agency or local government unit (LGU) concerned may accept or reject the proposal outright. Under Section 10.6 of the IRR, the "acceptance" of the unsolicited proposal by the agency/LGU is limited to the "commitment of the [a]gency/LGU to pursue the project and recognition of the proponent as the 'original proponent.'" Upon acceptance then of the unsolicited proposal, the original proponent is recognized as such but no award is yet made to it. The commitment of the agency/LGU upon acceptance of the unsolicited proposal is to the pursuit of the project, regardless of to whom it shall subsequently award the same. The acceptance of the unsolicited proposal only precludes the

agency/LGU from entertaining other similar proposals until the solicitation of comparative proposals. Consistent in both the statutes and the IRR is the requirement that invitations be published for comparative or competitive proposals. Therefore, it is mandatory that a public bidding be held before the awarding of the project. The negotiations between the agency/LGU and the original proponent, as provided in Section 10.9 of the IRR, is for the sole purpose of coming up with draft agreements, which shall be used in the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the solicitation of comparative proposals. Even at this point, there is no definite commitment made to the original proponent as to the awarding of the project. In fact, the same IRR provision even gives the concerned agency/LGU, in case of unresolvable differences during the negotiations, the option to reject the original proponent's proposal and just bid out the project. Generally, in the course of processing an unsolicited proposal, the original proponent is treated in much the same way as all other prospective bidders for the proposed infrastructure project. It is required to reformat and resubmit its proposal in accordance with the requirements of the TOR.22 It must submit a bid bond equal to the amount and in the form required of the challengers.23 Its qualification shall be evaluated by the concerned agency/LGU, using evaluation criteria in accordance with Rule 5 24 of the IRR, and which shall be the same criteria to be used in the TOR for the challengers.25 These requirements ensure that the public bidding under Rule 10 of IRR on Unsolicited Proposals still remain in accord with the three principles in public bidding, which are: the offer to the public, an opportunity for competition, and a basis for exact comparison of bids.26 The special rights or privileges of an original proponent thus come into play only when there are other proposals submitted during the public bidding of the infrastructure project. As can be gleaned from the plain language of the statutes and the IRR, the original proponent has: (1) the right to match the lowest or most advantageous proposal within 30 working days from notice thereof, and (2) in the event that the original proponent is able to match the lowest or most advantageous proposal submitted, then it has the right to be awarded the project. The second right or privilege is contingent upon the actual exercise by the original proponent of the first right or privilege. Before the project could be awarded to the original proponent, he must have been able to match the lowest or most advantageous proposal within the prescribed period. Hence, when the original proponent is able to timely match the lowest or most advantageous proposal, with all things being equal, it shall enjoy preference in the awarding of the infrastructure project.

39 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

This is the extent of the protection that Legislature intended to afford the original proponent, as supported by the exchange between Senators Neptali Gonzales and Sergio Osmea during the Second Reading of Senate Bill No. 1586: Senator Gonzales: xxxx The concept being that in case of an unsolicited proposal and nonetheless public bidding has been held, then [the original proponent] shall, in effect, be granted what is the equivalent of the right of first refusal by offering a bid which shall equal or better the bid of the winning bidder within a period of, let us say, 30 days from the date of bidding. Senator Osmea: xxxx To capture the tenor of the proposal of the distinguished Gentleman, a subsequent paragraph has to be added which says, "IF THERE IS A COMPETITIVE PROPOSAL, THE ORIGINAL PROPONENT SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO EQUAL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE COMPETITIVE PROPOSAL." In other words, if there is nobody who will submit a competitive proposal, then nothing is lost. Everybody knows it, and it is open and transparent. But if somebody comes in with another proposal and because it was the idea of the original proponent that proponent now has the right to equal the terms of the original proposal. SENATOR GONZALES: That is the idea, Mr. President. Because it seems to me that it is utterly unfair for one who has conceived an idea or a concept, spent and invested in feasibility studies, in the drawing of plans and specifications, and the project is submitted to a public bidding, then somebody will win on the basis of plans and specifications and concepts conceived by the original proponent. He should at least be given the right to submit an equalizing bid. x x x.27 (Emphasis ours.) As already found by this Court in the narration of facts in Agan, AEDC failed to match the more advantageous proposal submitted by PIATCO by the time the 30-day working period expired on 28 November 1996;28 and, without exercising its right to match the most advantageous proposal, it cannot now lay claim to the award of the project. The bidding process as to the NAIA IPT III Project was already over after the award thereof to PIATCO, even if eventually, the said award was nullified and voided. The nullification of the award to PIATCO did not revive the proposal nor re-open the bidding.

AEDC cannot insist that this Court turn back the hands of time and award the NAIA IPT III Project to it, as if the bid of PIATCO never existed and the award of the project to PIATCO did not take place. Such is a simplistic approach to a very complex problem that is the NAIA IPT III Project. In his separate opinion in Agan, former Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban noted that "[T]here was effectively no public bidding to speak of, the entire bidding process having been flawed and tainted from the very outset, therefore, the award of the concession to Paircargo's successor Piatco was void, and the Concession Agreement executed with the latter was likewise void ab initio. x x x.29" (Emphasis ours.) In consideration of such a declaration that the entire bidding process was flawed and tainted from the very beginning, then, it would be senseless to re-open the same to determine to whom the project should have been properly awarded to. The process and all proposals and bids submitted in participation thereof, and not just PIATCO's, were placed in doubt, and it would be foolhardy for the Government to rely on them again. At the very least, it may be declared that there was a failure of public bidding.30 In addition, PIATCO is already close to finishing the building of the structures comprising NAIA IPT III,31 a fact that this Court cannot simply ignore. The NAIA IPT III Project was proposed, subjected to bidding, and awarded as a build-operate-transfer (BOT) project. A BOT project is defined as A contractual arrangement whereby the project proponent undertakes the construction, including financing, of a given infrastructure facility, and the operation and maintenance thereof. The project proponent operates the facility over a fixed term during which it is allowed to charge facility users appropriate tolls, fees, rentals, and charges not exceeding those proposed in its bid or as negotiated and incorporated in the contract to enable the project proponent to recover its investment, and operating and maintenance expenses in the project. The project proponent transfers the facility to the government agency or local government unit concerned at the end of the fixed term that shall not exceed fifty (50) years. This shall include a supply-and-operate situation which is a contractual arrangement whereby the supplier of equipment and machinery for a given infrastructure facility, if the interest of the Government so requires, operates the facility providing in the process technology transfer and training to Filipino nationals.32 (Emphasis ours.) The original proposal of AEDC is for a BOT project, in which it undertook to build, operate, and transfer to the Government the NAIA IPT III facilities. This is clearly no longer applicable or practicable under the existing circumstances. It is undeniable that the physical structures comprising the NAIA IPT III Project are already substantially built,

40 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

and there is almost nothing left for AEDC to construct. Hence, the project could no longer be awarded to AEDC based on the theory of legal impossibility of performance. Neither can this Court revert to the original proposal of AEDC and award to it only the unexecuted components of the NAIA IPT III Project. Whoever shall assume the obligation to operate and maintain NAIA IPT III and to subsequently transfer the same to the Government (in case the operation is not assumed by the Government itself) shall have to do so on terms and conditions that would necessarily be different from the original proposal of AEDC. It will no longer include any undertaking to build or construct the structures. An amendment of the proposal of AEDC to address the present circumstances is out of the question since such an amendment would be substantive and tantamount to an entirely new proposal, which must again be subjected to competitive bidding. AEDC's offer to reimburse the Government the amount it shall pay to PIATCO for the NAIA IPT III Project facilities, as shall be determined in the ongoing expropriation proceedings before the RTC of Pasay City, cannot restore AEDC to its status and rights as the project proponent. It must be stressed that the law requires the project proponent to undertake the construction of the project, including financing; financing, thus, is but a component of the construction of the structures and not the entirety thereof. Moreover, this "reimbursement arrangement" may even result in the unjust enrichment of AEDC. In its original proposal, AEDC offered to construct the NAIA IPT III facilities for $350 million or P9 billion at that time. In exchange, AEDC would share a certain percentage of the gross revenues with, and pay a guaranteed annual income to the Government upon operation of the NAIA IPT III. In Gingoyon, the proferred value of the NAIA IPT III facilities was already determined to be P3 billion. It seems improbable at this point that the balance of the value of said facilities for which the Government is still obligated to pay PIATCO shall reach or exceed P6 billion. There is thus the possibility that the Government shall be required to pay PIATCO an amount less than P9 billion. If AEDC is to reimburse the Government only for the said amount, then it shall acquire the NAIA IPT III facilities for a price less than its original proposal of P9 billion. Yet, per the other terms of its original proposal, it may still recoup a capital investment of P9 billion plus a reasonable rate of return of investment. A change in the agreed value of the NAIA IPT III facilities already built cannot be done without a corresponding amendment in the other terms of the original proposal as regards profit sharing and length of operation; otherwise, AEDC will be unjustly enriched at the expense of the Government. Again, as aptly stated by former Chief Justice Panganiban, in his separate opinion in Agan:

If the PIATCO contracts are junked altogether as I think they should be, should not AEDC automatically be considered the winning bidder and therefore allowed to operate the facility? My answer is a stone-cold 'No.' AEDC never won the bidding, never signed any contract, and never built any facility. Why should it be allowed to automatically step in and benefit from the greed of another?33 The claim of AEDC to the award of the NAIA IPT III Project, after the award thereof to PIATCO was set aside for being null and void, grounded solely on its being the original proponent of the project, is specious and an apparent stretch in the interpretation of Section 4-A of Republic Act No. 6957, as amended by Republic Act No. 7718, and Rule 10 of the IRR. In all, just as AEDC has no legal right to the NAIA IPT III Project, corollarily, it has no legal right over the NAIA IPT III facility. AEDC does not own the NAIA IPT III facility, which this Court already recognized in Gingoyon as owned by PIATCO; nor does AEDC own the land on which NAIA IPT III stands, which is undisputedly owned by the Republic through the Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA). AEDC did not fund any portion of the construction of NAIA IPT III, which was entirely funded by PIATCO. AEDC also does not have any kind of lien over NAIA IPT III or any kind of legal entitlement to occupy the facility or the land on which it stands. Therefore, nothing that the Government has done or will do in relation to the project could possibly prejudice or injure AEDC. AEDC then does not possess any legal personality to interfere with or restrain the activities of the Government as regards NAIA IPT III. Neither does it have the legal personality to demand that the Government deliver or sell to it the NAIA IPT III facility despite the express willingness of AEDC to reimburse the Government the proferred amount it had paid PIATCO and complete NAIA IPT III facility at its own cost. AEDC invokes the Memorandum of Agreement, purportedly executed between the DOTC and AEDC on 26 February 1996, following the approval of the NAIA IPT III Project by the National Economic Development Authority Board in a Resolution dated 13 February 1996, which provided for the following commitments by the parties: a. commitment of Respondent DOTC to target mid 1996 as the time frame for the formal award of the project and commencement of site preparation and construction activities with the view of a partial opening of the Terminal by the first quarter of 1998; b. commitment of Respondent DOTC to pursue the project envisioned in the unsolicited proposal and commence and conclude as soon as possible negotiations with Petitioner AEDC on the BOT contract; c. commitment of Respondent DOTC to make appropriate arrangements through which the formal award of the project can be affected[;]

41 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

d. commitment of Petitioner AEDC to a fast track approach to project implementation and to commence negotiations with its financial partners, investors and creditors; e. commitment of Respondent DOTC and Petitioner AEDC to fast track evaluation of competitive proposals, screening and eliminating nuisance comparative bids;34 It is important to note, however, that the document attached as Annex "E" to the Petition of AEDC is a "certified photocopy of records on file." This Court cannot give much weight to said document considering that its existence and due execution have not been established. It is not notarized, so it does not enjoy the presumption of regularity of a public document. It is not even witnessed by anyone. It is not certified true by its supposed signatories, Secretary Jesus B. Garcia, Jr. for DOTC and Chairman Henry Sy, Sr. for AEDC, or by any government agency having its custody. It is certified as a photocopy of records on file by an Atty. Cecilia L. Pesayco, the Corporate Secretary, of an unidentified corporation. Even assuming for the sake of argument, that the said Memorandum of Agreement, is in existence and duly executed, it does little to support the claim of AEDC to the award of the NAIA IPT III Project. The commitments undertaken by the DOTC and AEDC in the Memorandum of Agreement may be simply summarized as a commitment to comply with the procedure and requirements provided in Rules 10 and 11 of the IRR. It bears no commitment on the part of the DOTC to award the NAIA IPT III Project to AEDC. On the contrary, the document includes express stipulations that negate any such government obligation. Thus, in the first clause,35 the DOTC affirmed its commitment to pursue, implement and complete the NAIA IPT III Project on or before 1998, noticeably without mentioning that such commitment was to pursue the project specifically with AEDC. Likewise, in the second clause,36 it was emphasized that the DOTC shall pursue the project under Rules 10 and 11 of the IRR of Republic Act No. 6957, as amended by Republic Act No. 7718. And most significantly, the tenth clause of the same document provided: 10. Nothing in this Memorandum of Understanding shall be understood, interpreted or construed as permitting, allowing or authorizing the circumvention of, or noncompliance with, or as waiving, the provisions of, and requirements and procedures under, existing laws, rules and regulations.37 AEDC further decries that: 24. In carrying out its commitments under the DOTC-AEDC MOU, Petitioner AEDC undertook the following activities, incurring in the process tremendous costs and expenses. a. pre-qualified 46 design and contractor firms to assist in the NAIA-IPT III Project;

b. appointed a consortium of six (6) local banks as its financial advisor in June 1996; c. hired the services of GAIA South, Inc. to prepare the Project Description Report and to obtain the Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC) for the NAIA-IPT III Project; d. coordinated with the Airline Operators Association, Bases Conversion Development Authority, Philippine Air Force, Bureau of Customs, Bureau of Immigration, relative to their particular requirements regarding the NAIA-IPT III [P]roject; and e. negotiated and entered into firm commitments with Ital Thai, Marubeni Corporation and Mitsui Corporation as equity partners.38 While the Court may concede that AEDC, as the original proponent, already expended resources in its preparation and negotiation of its unsolicited proposal, the mere fact thereof does not entitle it to the instant award of the NAIA IPT III Project. AEDC was aware that the said project would have to undergo public bidding, and there existed the possibility that another proponent may submit a more advantageous bid which it cannot match; in which case, the project shall be awarded to the other proponent and AEDC would then have no means to recover the costs and expenses it already incurred on its unsolicited proposal. It was a given business risk that AEDC knowingly undertook. Additionally, the very defect upon which this Court nullified the award of the NAIA IPT III Project to PIATCO similarly taints the unsolicited proposal of AEDC. This Court found Paircargo Consortium financially disqualified after striking down as incorrect the PBAC's assessment of the consortium's financial capability. According to the Court's ratio in Agan: As the minimum project cost was estimated to be US$350,000,000.00 or roughly P9,183,650,000.00, the Paircargo Consortium had to show to the satisfaction of the PBAC that it had the ability to provide the minimum equity for the project in the amount of at least P2,755,095,000.00. xxxx Thus, the maximum amount that Security Bank could validly invest in the Paircargo Consortium is only P528,525,656.55, representing 15% of its entire net worth. The total net worth therefore of the Paircargo Consortium, after considering the maximum amounts that may be validly invested by each of its members is P558,384,871.55 or only 6.08% of the project cost, an amount substantially less than the prescribed minimum equity investment required for the project in the amount of P2,755,095,000.00 or 30% of the project cost. The purpose of pre-qualification in any public bidding is to determine, at the earliest opportunity, the ability of the bidder to undertake the project. Thus, with respect to the

42 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

bidder's financial capacity at the pre-qualification stage, the law requires the government agency to examine and determine the ability of the bidder to fund the entire cost of the project by considering the maximum amounts that each bidder may invest in the project at the time of pre-qualification. xxxx Thus, if the maximum amount of equity that a bidder may invest in the project at the time the bids are submitted falls short of the minimum amounts required to be put up by the bidder, said bidder should be properly disqualified. Considering that at the prequalification stage, the maximum amounts which the Paircargo Consortium may invest in the project fell short of the minimum amounts prescribed by the PBAC, we hold that Paircargo Consortium was not a qualified bidder. Thus the award of the contract by the PBAC to the Paircargo Consortium, a disqualified bidder, is null and void. 39 Pursuant to the above-quoted ruling, AEDC, like the Paircargo Consortium, would not be financially qualified to undertake the NAIA IPT III Project. Based on AEDC's own submissions to the Government, it had then a paid-in capital of only P150,000,000.00,40 which was less than the P558,384,871.55 that Paircargo Consortium was capable of investing in the NAIA IPT III Project, and even far less that what this Court prescribed as the minimum equity investment required for the project in the amount of P2,755,095,000.00 or 30% of the project cost. AEDC had not sufficiently demonstrated that it would have been financially qualified to undertake the project at the time of submission of the bids. Instead, AEDC took pains to present to this Court that allowing it to take over and operate NAIA IPT III at present would be beneficial to the Government. This Court must point out, however, that AEDC is precisely making a new proposal befitting the current status of the NAIA IPT III Project, contrary to its own argument that it is merely invoking its original BOT proposal. And it is not for this Court to evaluate AEDC's new proposal and assess whether it would truly be most beneficial for the Government, for the same is an executive function rather than judicial, for which the statutes and regulations have sufficiently provided standards and procedures for evaluation. It can even be said that if the award of the NAIA IPT III Project was merely a matter of choosing between PIATCO and AEDC (which it is not), there could be no doubt that PIATCO is more qualified to operate the structure that PIATCO itself built and PIATCO's offer of P17.75 Billion in annual guaranteed payments to the Government is far better that AEDC's offer of P135 Million.

Hence, AEDC is not entitled to a writ of mandamus, there being no specific, certain, and clear legal right to be enforced, nor duty to be performed that is clearly and peremptorily enjoined by law or by reason of official station. PROCEDURAL LAPSES In addition to the substantive weaknesses of the Petition of AEDC, the said Petition also suffers from procedural defects. AEDC revived its hope to acquire the NAIA IPT III Project when this Court promulgated its Decision in Agan on 5 May 2003. The said Decision became final and executory on 17 February 2004 upon the denial by this Court of the Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration submitted by PIATCO. It is this Decision that declared the award of the NAIA IPT III Project to PIATCO as null and void; without the same, then the award of the NAIA IPT III Project to PIATCO would still subsist and other persons would remain precluded from acquiring rights thereto, including AEDC. Irrefutably, the present claim of AEDC is rooted in the Decision of this Court in Agan. However, AEDC filed the Petition at bar only 20 months after the promulgation of the Decision in Agan on 5 May 2003. It must be emphasized that under Sections 2 and 3, Rule 65 of the revised Rules of Civil Procedure, petitions for prohibition and mandamus, such as in the instant case, can only be resorted to when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy for the party in the ordinary course of law. In Cruz v. Court of Appeals,41 this Court elucidates that Although Rule 65 does not specify any period for the filing of a petition for certiorari and mandamus, it must, nevertheless, be filed within a reasonable time. In certiorari cases, the definitive rule now is that such reasonable time is within three months from the commission of the complained act. The same rule should apply to mandamus cases. The unreasonable delay in the filing of the petitioner's mandamus suit unerringly negates any claim that the application for the said extraordinary remedy was the most expeditious and speedy available to the petitioner. (Emphasis ours.) As the revised Rules now stand, a petition for certiorari may be filed within 60 days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution sought to be assailed. 42 Reasonable time for filing a petition for mandamus should likewise be for the same period. The filing by the AEDC of its petition for mandamus 20 months after its supposed right to the project arose is evidently beyond reasonable time and negates any claim that the said petition for the extraordinary writ was the most expeditious and speedy remedy available to AEDC.

43 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

AEDC contends that the "reasonable time" within which it should have filed its petition should be reckoned only from 21 September 2005, the date when AEDC received the letter from the Office of the Solicitor General refusing to recognize the rights of AEDC to provide the available funds for the completion of the NAIA IPT III Project and to reimburse the costs of the structures already built by PIATCO. It has been unmistakable that even long before said letter especially when the Government instituted with the RTC of Pasay City expropriation proceedings for the NAIA IPT III on 21 December 2004 that the Government would not recognize any right that AEDC purportedly had over the NAIA IPT III Project and that the Government is intent on taking over and operating the NAIA IPT III itself. Another strong argument against the AEDC's Petition is that it is already barred by res judicata. In Agan,43 it was noted that on 16 April 1997, the AEDC instituted before the RTC of Pasig City Civil Case No. 66213, a Petition for the Declaration of Nullity of the Proceedings, Mandamus and Injunction, against the DOTC Secretary and the PBAC Chairman and members. In Civil Case No. 66213, AEDC prayed for: i) the nullification of the proceedings before the DOTC-PBAC, including its decision to qualify Paircargo Consortium and to deny Petitioner AEDC's access to Paircargo Consortium's technical and financial bid documents; ii) the protection of Petitioner AEDC's right to match considering the void challenge bid of the Paircargo Consortium and the denial by DOTC-PBAC of access to information vital to the effective exercise of its right to match; iii) the declaration of the absence of any other qualified proponent submitting a competitive bid in an unsolicited proposal.44 Despite the pendency of Civil Case No. 66213, the DOTC issued the notice of award for the NAIA IPT III Project to PIATCO on 9 July 1997. The DOTC and PIATCO also executed on 12 July 1997 the 1997 Concession Agreement. AEDC then alleges that: k) On September 3, 1998, then Pres. Joseph Ejercito Estrada convened a meeting with the members of the Board of Petitioner AEDC to convey his "desire" for the dismissal of the mandamus case filed by Petition AEDC and in fact urged AEDC to immediately withdraw said case. l) The President's direct intervention in the disposition of this mandamus case was a clear imposition that Petitioner AEDC had not choice but to accept. To do otherwise was to take a confrontational stance against the most powerful man in the country then

under the risk of catching his ire, which could have led to untold consequences upon the business interests of the stakeholders in AEDC. Thus, Petitioner AEDC was constrained to agree to the signing of a Joint Motion to Dismiss and to the filing of the same in court. m) Unbeknownst to AEDC at that time was that simultaneous with the signing of the July 12, 1997 Concession Agreement, the DOTC and PIATCO executed a secret side agreement grossly prejudicial and detrimental to the interest of Government. It stipulated that in the event that the Civil Case filed by AEDC on April 16, 1997 is not resolved in a manner favorable to the Government, PIATCO shall be entitled to full reimbursement for all costs and expenses it incurred in order to obtain the NAIA IPT III BOT project in an amount not less than One Hundred Eighty Million Pesos (Php 180,000,000.00). This was apparently the reason why the President was determined to have AEDC's case dismissed immediately. n) On February 9, 1999, after the Amended and Restated Concession Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "ARCA") was signed without Petitioner AEDC's knowledge, Petitioner AEDC signed a Joint Motion to Dismiss upon the representation of the DOTC that it would provide AEDC with a copy of the 1997 Concession Agreement. x x x. 45 On 30 April 1999, the RTC of Pasig City issued an Order dismissing with prejudice Civil Case No. 66213 upon the execution by the parties of a Joint Motion to Dismiss. According to the Joint Motion to Dismiss The parties, assisted by their respective counsel, respectfully state: 1. Philippine International Air Terminals Company, Inc. ("PIATCO") and the respondents have submitted to petitioner, through the Office of the Executive Secretary, Malacaang, a copy of the Concession Agreement which they executed for the construction and operation of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport International Passenger Terminal III Project ("NAIA IPT III Project), which petitioner requested. 2. Consequently, the parties have decided to amicably settle the instant case and jointly move for the dismissal thereof without any of the parties admitting liability or conceding to the position taken by the other in the instant case. 3. Petitioner, on the other hand, and the respondents, on the other hand, hereby release and forever discharge each other from any and all liabilities, direct or indirect, whether criminal or civil, which arose in connection with the instant case. 4. The parties agree to bear the costs, attorney's fees and other expenses they respectively incurred in connection with the instant case. (Emphasis ours.) AEDC, however, invokes the purported pressure exerted upon it by then President Joseph E. Estrada, the alleged fraud committed by the DOTC, and paragraph 2 in the

44 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

afore-quoted Joint Motion to Dismiss to justify the non-application of the doctrine of res judicata to its present Petition. The elements of res judicata, in its concept as a bar by former judgment, are as follows: (1) the former judgment or order must be final; (2) it must be a judgment or order on the merits, that is, it was rendered after a consideration of the evidence or stipulations submitted by the parties at the trial of the case; (3) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and (4) there must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, of subject matter and of cause of action.46 All of the elements are present herein so as to bar the present Petition. First, the Order of the RTC of Pasig City, dismissing Civil Case No. 66213, was issued on 30 April 1999. The Joint Motion to Dismiss, deemed a compromise agreement, once approved by the court is immediately executory and not appealable.47 Second, the Order of the RTC of Pasig City dismissing Civil Case No. 66213 pursuant to the Joint Motion to Dismiss filed by the parties constitutes a judgment on the merits. The Joint Motion to Dismiss stated that the parties were willing to settle the case amicably and, consequently, moved for the dismissal thereof. It also contained a provision in which the parties the AEDC, on one hand, and the DOTC Secretary and PBAC, on the other released and forever discharged each other from any and all liabilities, whether criminal or civil, arising in connection with the case. It is undisputable that the parties entered into a compromise agreement, defined as "a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced.48" Essentially, it is a contract perfected by mere consent, the latter being manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract. Once an agreement is stamped with judicial approval, it becomes more than a mere contract binding upon the parties; having the sanction of the court and entered as its determination of the controversy, it has the force and effect of any other judgment.49 Article 2037 of the Civil Code explicitly provides that a compromise has upon the parties the effect and authority of res judicata. Because of the compromise agreement among the parties, there was accordingly a judicial settlement of the controversy, and the Order, dated 30 April 1999, of the RTC of Pasig City was no less a judgment on the merits which may be annulled only upon the ground of extrinsic fraud.50 Thus, the RTC of Pasig City, in the same Order, correctly granted the dismissal of Civil Case No. 66213 with prejudice. A scrutiny of the Joint Motion to Dismiss submitted to the RTC of Pasig City would reveal that the parties agreed to discharge one another from any and all liabilities, whether

criminal or civil, arising from the case, after AEDC was furnished with a copy of the 1997 Concession Agreement between the DOTC and PIATCO. This complete waiver was the reciprocal concession of the parties that puts to an end the present litigation, without any residual right in the parties to litigate the same in the future. Logically also, there was no more need for the parties to admit to any liability considering that they already agreed to absolutely discharge each other therefrom, without necessarily conceding to the other's position. For AEDC, it was a declaration that even if it was not conceding to the Government's position, it was nonetheless waiving any legal entitlement it might have to sue the Government on account of the NAIA IPT III Project. Conversely, for the Government, it was an avowal that even if it was not accepting AEDC's stance, it was all the same relinquishing its right to file any suit against AEDC in connection with the same project. That none of the parties admitted liability or conceded its position is without bearing on the validity or binding effect of the compromise agreement, considering that these were not essential to the said compromise. Third, there is no question as to the jurisdiction of the RTC of Pasig City over the subject matter and parties in Civil Case No. 66213. The RTC can exercise original jurisdiction over cases involving the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction.51 To recall, the Petition of AEDC before the RTC of Pasig City was for the declaration of nullity of proceedings, mandamus and injunction. The RTC of Pasig City likewise had jurisdiction over the parties, with the voluntary submission by AEDC and proper service of summons on the DOTC Secretary and the PBAC Chairman and members. Lastly, there is, between Civil Case No. 66213 before the RTC of Pasig City and the Petition now pending before this Court, an identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action. There is an identity of parties. In both petitions, the AEDC is the petitioner. The respondents in Civil Case No. 66213 are the DOTC Secretary and the PBAC Chairman and members. The respondents in the instant Petition are the DOTC, the DOTC Secretary, and the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA). While it may be conceded that MIAA was not a respondent and did not participate in Civil Case No. 66213, it may be considered a successor-in-interest of the PBAC. When Civil Case No. 66213 was initiated, PBAC was then in charge of the NAIA IPT III Project, and had the authority to evaluate the bids and award the project to the one offering the lowest or most advantageous bid. Since the bidding is already over, and the structures comprising NAIA IPT III are now built, then MIAA has taken charge thereof. Furthermore, it is clear that it has been the intention of the AEDC to name as respondents in their two Petitions the government agency/ies and official/s who, at the moment each Petition was filed, had authority over the NAIA IPT III Project.

45 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

There is an identity of subject matter because the two Petitions involve none other than the award and implementation of the NAIA IPT III Project. There is an identity of cause of action because, in both Petitions, AEDC is asserting the violation of its right to the award of the NAIA IPT III Project as the original proponent in the absence of any other qualified bidders. As early as in Civil Case No. 66213, AEDC already sought a declaration by the court of the absence of any other qualified proponent submitting a competitive bid for the NAIA IPT III Project, which, ultimately, would result in the award of the said project to it. AEDC attempts to evade the effects of its compromise agreement by alleging that it was compelled to enter into such an agreement when former President Joseph E. Estrada asserted his influence and intervened in Civil Case No. 66213. This allegation deserves scant consideration. Without any proof that such events did take place, such statements remain mere allegations that cannot be given weight. One who alleges any defect or the lack of a valid consent to a contract must establish the same by full, clear and convincing evidence, not merely by preponderance thereof.52 And, even assuming arguendo, that the consent of AEDC to the compromise agreement was indeed vitiated, then President Estrada was removed from office in January 2001. AEDC filed the present Petition only on 20 October 2005. The four-year prescriptive period, within which an action to annul a voidable contract may be brought, had already expired.53 The AEDC further claims that the DOTC committed fraud when, without AEDC's knowledge, the DOTC entered into an Amended and Restated Concession Agreement (ARCA) with PIATCO. The fraud on the part of the DOTC purportedly also vitiated AEDC's consent to the compromise agreement. It is true that a judicial compromise may be set aside if fraud vitiated the consent of a party thereof; and that the extrinsic fraud, which nullifies a compromise, likewise invalidates the decision approving it. 54 However, once again, AEDC's allegations of fraud are unsubstantiated. There is no proof that the DOTC and PIATCO willfully and deliberately suppressed and kept the information on the execution of the ARCA from AEDC. The burden of proving that there indeed was fraud lies with the party making such allegation. Each party must prove his own affirmative allegations. The burden of proof lies on the party who would be defeated if no evidence were given on either side. In this jurisdiction, fraud is never presumed. 55 Moreover, a judicial compromise may be rescinded or set aside on the ground of fraud in accordance with Rule 38 of the Rules on Civil Procedure on petition for relief from judgment. Section 3 thereof prescribes the periods within which the petition for relief must be filed: SEC. 3. Time for filing petition; contents and verification. A petition provided for in either of the preceding sections of this Rule must be verified, filed within sixty (60) days

after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order or other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or final order was entered, or such proceeding was taken, and must be accompanied with affidavits showing the fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting the petitioner's good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be. According to this Court's ruling in Argana v. Republic,56 as applied to a judgment based on compromise, both the 60-day and six-month reglementary periods within which to file a petition for relief should be reckoned from the date when the decision approving the compromise agreement was rendered because such judgment is considered immediately executory and entered on the date that it was approved by the court. In the present case, the Order of the RTC of Pasig City granting the Joint Motion to Dismiss filed by the parties in Civil Case No. 66213 was issued on 30 April 1999, yet AEDC only spoke of the alleged fraud which vitiated its consent thereto in its Petition before this Court filed on 20 October 2005, more than six years later. It is obvious that the assertion by AEDC of its vitiated consent to the Joint Motion to Dismiss Civil Case No. 66213 is nothing more than an after-thought and a desperate attempt to escape the legal implications thereof, including the barring of its present Petition on the ground of res judicata. It is also irrelevant to the legal position of AEDC that the Government asserted in Agan that the award of the NAIA IPT III Project to PIATCO was void. That the Government eventually took such a position, which this Court subsequently upheld, does not affect AEDC's commitments and obligations under its judicially-approved compromise agreement in Civil Case No. 66213, which AEDC signed willingly, knowingly, and ably assisted by legal counsel. In addition, it cannot be said that there has been a fundamental change in the Government's position since Civil Case No. 66213, contrary to the allegation of AEDC. The Government then espoused that AEDC is not entitled to the award of the NAIA IPT III Project. The Government still maintains the exact same position presently. That the Government eventually reversed its position on the validity of its award of the project to PIATCO is not inconsistent with its position that neither should AEDC be awarded the project. For the foregoing substantive and procedural reasons, the instant Petition of AEDC should be dismissed. Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals and Baterina (G.R. No. 174166) As mentioned in Gingoyon, expropriation proceedings for the NAIA IPT III was instituted by the Government with the RTC of Pasay City, docketed as Case No. 04-0876CFM.

46 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

Congressman Baterina, together with other members of the House of Representatives, sought intervention in Case No. 04-0876CFM by filing a Petition for Prohibition in Intervention (with Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction). Baterina, et al. believe that the Government need not file expropriation proceedings to gain possession of NAIA IPT III and that PIATCO is not entitled to payment of just compensation, arguing thus A) Respondent PIATCO does not own Terminal III because BOT Contracts do not vest ownership in PIATCO. As such, neither PIATCO nor FRAPORT are entitled to compensation. B) Articles 448, ET SEQ., of the New Civil Code, as regards builders in good faith/bad faith, do not apply to PIATCO's Construction of Terminal III. C) Article 1412(2) of the New Civil Code allows the Government to demand the return of what it has given without any obligation to comply with its promise. D) The payment of compensation to PIATCO is unconstitutional, violative of the BuildOperate-Transfer Law, and violates the Civil Code and other laws. 57 On 27 October 2005, the RTC of Pasay City issued an Order admitting the Petition in Intervention of Baterina, et al., as well as the Complaint in Intervention of Manuel L. Fortes, Jr. and the Answer in Intervention of Gina B. Alnas, et al. The Republic sought reconsideration of the 27 October 2005 Order of the RTC of Pasay City, which, in an Omnibus Order dated 13 December 2005, was denied by the RTC of Pasay City as regards the intervention of Baterina, et al. and Fortes, but granted as to the intervention of Alnas, et al. On 22 March 2006, Baterina, et al. filed with the RTC of Pasay City a Motion to Declare in Default and/or Motion for Summary Judgment considering that the Republic and PIATCO failed to file an answer or any responsive pleading to their Petition for Prohibition in Intervention. In the meantime, on 19 December 2005, the Court's Decision in Gingoyon was promulgated. Baterina also filed a Motion for Intervention in said case and sought reconsideration of the Decision therein. However, his Motion for Intervention was denied by this Court in a Resolution dated 1 February 2006. On 27 March 2006, the RTC of Pasay City issued an Order and Writ of Execution, the dispositive portion of which reads WHEREFORE, let a writ of execution be issued in this case directing the Sheriff of this court to immediately implement the Order dated January 4, 2005 and January 10, 2005, as affirmed by the Decision of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 166429 in the aboveentitled case dated December 19, 2005, in the following manner:

1. Ordering the General Manager, the Senior Assistant General Manager and the Vice President of Finance of the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) to immediately withdraw the amount of P3,002,125,000.00 from the above-mentioned Certificates of US Dollar Time Deposits with the Land Bank of the Philippines, Baclaran Branch; 2. Ordering the Branch Manager, Land Bank of the Philippines, Baclaran Branch to immediately release the sum of P3,002,125,000.00 to PIATCO; Return of Service of the Writs shall be made by the Sheriff of this court immediately thereafter;58 The RTC of Pasay City, in an Order, dated 15 June 2006, denied the Motions for Reconsideration of its Order and Writ of Execution filed by the Government and Fortes. Baterina, meanwhile, went before the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (With Urgent Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction), docketed as CA-G.R. No. 95539, assailing the issuance, in grave abuse of discretion, by the RTC of Pasay City of its Orders dated 27 March 2006 and 15 June 2006 and Writ of Execution dated 27 March 2006. During the pendency of CA-G.R. No. 95539 with the Court of Appeals, the RTC of Pasay City issued an Order, dated 7 August 2006, denying the Urgent Manifestation and Motion filed by the Republic in which it relayed willingness to comply with the Order and Writ of Execution dated 27 March 2006, provided that the trial court shall issue an Order expressly authorizing the Republic to award concessions and lease portions of the NAIA IPT III to potential users. The following day, on 8 August 2006, the RTC of Pasay City issued an Order denying the intervention of Baterina, et al. and Fortes in Case No. 04-0876CFM. In a third Order, dated 9 August 2006, the RTC of Pasay City directed PIATCO to receive the amount of P3,002,125,000.00 from the Land Bank of the Philippines, Baclaran Branch. By 24 August 2006, the Republic was all set to comply with the 9 August 2006 Order of the RTC of Pasay City. Hence, the representatives of the Republic and PIATCO met before the RTC of Pasay City for the supposed payment by the former to the latter of the proferred amount. However, on the same day, the Court of Appeals, in CA G.R. No. 95539, issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining, among other things, the RTC of Pasay City from implementing the questioned Orders, dated 27 March 2006 and 15 June 2006, or "from otherwise causing payment and from further proceeding with the determination of just compensation in the expropriation case involved herein, until such time that petitioner's motion to declare in default and motion for partial summary judgment shall have been resolved by the trial court; or it is clarified that PIATCO categorically disputes the proferred value for NAIA Terminal 3." The TRO was to be

47 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

effective for 30 days. Two days later, on 26 August 2006, the Republic filed with the Court of Appeals an Urgent Motion to Lift Temporary Restraining Order, which the appellate court scheduled for hearing on 5 September 2006. While the Urgent Motion to lift the TRO was still pending with the Court of Appeals, the Republic already filed the present Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition With Urgent Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction, attributing to the Court of Appeals grave abuse of discretion in granting the TRO and seeking a writ of prohibition against the Court of Appeals to enjoin it from giving due course to Baterina's Petition in CA-G.R. No. 95539. The Republic thus raises before this Court the following arguments: I THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO AN EXCESS OR LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT GRANTED THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. A. THIS HONORABLE COURT'S DECISION IN GINGOYON CONSTITUTES THE "LAW OF THE CASE". B. THE TRO IS IN DIRECT CONTRAVENTION OF THIS COURT'S DECISION WICH HAD ATTAINED FINALITY. II THE REPUBLIC IS SUFFERING IRREPARABLE DAMAGE. III THE COURT OF APPEALS MUST BE PROHIBITED FROM GIVING DUE COURSE TO A PETITION THAT IS DEFECTIVE IN FORM AND SUBSTANCE. A. PRIVATE RESPONDENT HAS NO LEGAL STANDING. 1. THIS HONORABLE COURT HAS RULED THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT HAS NO LEGAL STANDING. 2. PRIVATE RESPONDENT HAS LOST HIS STANDING AS AN INTERVENOR. B. PRIVATE RESPONDENT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEFS PRAYED FOR. C. THE BOND POSTED IS INSUFFICIENT. IV

GRANTING ARGUENDO THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S PETITION IS SUFFICIENT IN FORM AND SUBSTANCE, THE SAME HAS BECOME MOOT AND ACADEMIC. A. THE MOTION TO DECLARE IN DEFAULT AND/OR MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED. B. PIATCO HAS CATEGORICALLY DISPUTED THE PROFFERED VALUE FOR NAIA TERMINAL III.59 The Republic prays of this Court that: (a) Pending the determination of the merits of this petition, a temporary restraining order and/or a writ of preliminary injunction be ISSUED restraining the Court of Appeals from implementing the writ of preliminary injunction in CA-G.R. SP No. 95539 and proceeding in said case such as hearing it on September 5, 2006. After both parties have been heard, the preliminary injunction be MADE PERMANENT; (b) The Resolution date 24 August 2006 of the Court of Appeals be SET ASIDE; and (c) CA-G.R. SP No. 95539 be ORDERED DISMISSED. Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.60 On 4 September 2006, the Republic filed a Manifestation and Motion to Withdraw Urgent Motion to Lift Temporary Restraining Order with the Court of Appeals stating, among other things, that it had decided to withdraw the said Motion as it had opted to avail of other options and remedies. Despite the Motion to Withdraw filed by the Government, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution, dated 8 September 2006, lifting the TRO it issued, on the basis of the following In view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the Gingoyon case upholding the right of PIATCO to be paid the proferred value in the amount of P3,002,125,000.00 prior to the implementation of the writ of possession issued by the trial court on December 21, 2004 over the NAIA Passenger Terminal III, and directing the determination of just compensation, there is no practical and logical reason to maintain the effects of the Temporary Restraining Order contained in our Resolution dated August 24, 2006. Thus, We cannot continue restraining what has been mandated in a final and executory decision of the Supreme Court. WHEREFORE, Our Resolution dated 24 August 2006 be SET ASIDE. Consequently, the Motion to Withdraw the Motion to Lift the Temporary Restraining Order is rendered moot and academic.61

48 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

There being no more legal impediment, the Republic tendered on 11 September 2006 Land Bank check in the amount of P3,002,125,000.00 representing the proferred value of NAIA IPT III, which was received by a duly authorized representative of PIATCO. On 27 December 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision in CA G.R. No. 95539 dismissing Baterina's Petition. The latest developments before the Court of Appeals and the RTC of Pasay City render the present Petition of the Republic moot. Nonetheless, Baterina, as the private respondent in the instant Petition, presented his own prayer that a judgment be rendered as follows: A. For this Honorable Court, in the exercise of its judicial discretion to relax procedural rules consistent with Metropolitan Traffic Command v. Gonong and deem that justice would be better served if all legal issues involved in the expropriation case and in Baterina are resolved in this case once and for all, to DECLARE that: i. TERMINAL 3, as a matter of law, is public property and thus not a proper object of eminent domain proceedings; and ii. PIATCO, as a matter of law, is merely the builder of TERMINAL 3 and, as such, it may file a claim for recovery on quantum meruit with the Commission on Audi[t] for determination of the amount thereof, if any. B. To DIRECT the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 117 to dismiss the expropriation case; C. To DISMISS the instant Petition and DENY The Republic's application for TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction for lack of merit; D. To DECLARE that the P3 Billion (representing the proferred value of TERMINAL 3) paid to PIATCO on 11 September 2006 as funds held in trust by PIATCO for the benefit of the Republic and subject to the outcome of the proceedings for the determination of recovery on quantum meruit due to PIATCO, if any. E. To DIRECT the Solicitor General to disclose the evidence it has gathered on corruption, bribery, fraud, bad faith, etc., to this Honorable Court and the Commission on Audit, and to DECLARE such evidence to be admissible in any proceeding for the determination of any compensation due to PIATCO, if any. [F]. In the alternative, to: i. SET ASIDE the trial court's Order dated 08 August 2006 denying Private Respondent's motion for intervention in the expropriation case, and

ii. Should this Honorable Court lend credence to the argument of the Solicitor General in its Comment dated 20 April 2006 that "there are issues as to material fact that require presentation of evidence", to REMAND the resolution of the legal issues raised by Private Respondent to the trial court consistent with this Honorable Court's holding in the Gingoyon Resolution that "the interests of the movants-in-intervention [meaning Takenaka, Asahikosan, and herein Private Respondent] may be duly litigated in proceedings which are extant before the lower courts."62 In essence, Baterina is opposing the expropriation proceedings on the ground that NAIA IPT III is already public property. Hence, PIATCO is not entitled to just compensation for NAIA IPT III. He is asking the Court to make a definitive ruling on this matter considering that it was not settled in either Agan or Gingoyon. We disagree. Contrary to Baterina's stance, PIATCO's entitlement to just and equitable consideration for its construction of NAIA IPT III and the propriety of the Republic's resort to expropriation proceedings were already recognized and upheld by this Court in Agan and Gingoyon. The Court's Decisions in both Agan and Gingoyon had attained finality, the former on 17 February 2004 and the latter on 17 March 2006. This Court already made an unequivocal pronouncement in its Resolution dated 21 January 2004 in Agan that for the Government of the Republic to take over the NAIA IPT III facility, it has to compensate PIATCO as a builder of the structures; and that "[t]he compensation must be just and in accordance with law and equity for the government cannot unjustly enrich itself at the expense of PIATCO and its investors."63 As between the Republic and PIATCO, the judgment on the need to compensate PIATCO before the Government may take over NAIA IPT III is already conclusive and beyond question. Hence, in Gingoyon, this Court declared that: This pronouncement contains the fundamental premises which permeate this decision of the Court. Indeed, Agan, final and executory as it is, stands as governing law in this case, and any disposition of the present petition must conform to the conditions laid down by the Court in its 2004 Resolution. xxxx The pronouncement in the 2004 Resolution is especially significant to this case in two aspects, namely: (i) that PIATCO must receive payment of just compensation determined in accordance with law and equity; and (ii) that the government is barred from taking over NAIA 3 until such just compensation is paid. The parties cannot be allowed to evade the directives laid down by this Court through any mode of judicial action, such as the complaint for eminent domain.

49 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

It cannot be denied though that the Court in the 2004 Resolution prescribed mandatory guidelines which the Government must observe before it could acquire the NAIA 3 facilities. Thus, the actions of respondent judge under review, as well as the arguments of the parties must, to merit affirmation, pass the threshold test of whether such propositions are in accord with the 2004 Resolution.64 The Court then, in Gingoyon, directly addressed the issue on the appropriateness of the Republic's resort to expropriation proceedings: The Government has chosen to resort to expropriation, a remedy available under the law, which has the added benefit of an integrated process for the determination of just compensation and the payment thereof to PIATCO. We appreciate that the case at bar is a highly unusual case, whereby the Government seeks to expropriate a building complex constructed on land which the State already owns. There is an inherent illogic in the resort to eminent domain on property already owned by the State. At first blush, since the State already owns the property on which NAIA 3 stands, the proper remedy should be akin to an action for ejectment. However, the reason for the resort by the Government to expropriation proceedings is understandable in this case. The 2004 Resolution, in requiring the payment of just compensation prior to the takeover by the Government of NAIA 3, effectively precluded it from acquiring possession or ownership of the NAIA 3 through the unilateral exercise of its rights as the owner of the ground on which the facilities stood. Thus, as things stood after the 2004 Resolution, the right of the Government to take over the NAIA 3 terminal was preconditioned by lawful order on the payment of just compensation to PIATCO as builder of the structures. xxxx The right of eminent domain extends to personal and real property, and the NAIA 3 structures, adhered as they are to the soil, are considered as real property. The public purpose for the expropriation is also beyond dispute. It should also be noted that Section 1 of Rule 67 (on Expropriation) recognizes the possibility that the property sought to be expropriated may be titled in the name of the Republic of the Philippines, although occupied by private individuals, and in such case an averment to that effect should be made in the complaint. The instant expropriation complaint did aver that the NAIA 3 complex "stands on a parcel of land owned by the Bases Conversion Development Authority, another agency of [the Republic of the Philippines]." Admittedly, eminent domain is not the sole judicial recourse by which the Government may have acquired the NAIA 3 facilities while satisfying the requisites in the 2004

Resolution. Eminent domain though may be the most effective, as well as the speediest means by which such goals may be accomplished. Not only does it enable immediate possession after satisfaction of the requisites under the law, it also has a built-in procedure through which just compensation may be ascertained. Thus, there should be no question as to the propriety of eminent domain proceedings in this case. Still, in applying the laws and rules on expropriation in the case at bar, we are impelled to apply or construe these rules in accordance with the Court's prescriptions in the 2004 Resolution to achieve the end effect that the Government may validly take over the NAIA 3 facilities. Insofar as this case is concerned, the 2004 Resolution is effective not only as a legal precedent, but as the source of rights and prescriptions that must be guaranteed, if not enforced, in the resolution of this petition. Otherwise, the integrity and efficacy of the rulings of this Court will be severely diminished.65 (Emphasis ours.) The Court, also in Gingoyon, categorically recognized PIATCO's ownership over the structures it had built in NAIA IPT III, to wit: There can be no doubt that PIATCO has ownership rights over the facilities which it had financed and constructed. The 2004 Resolution squarely recognized that right when it mandated the payment of just compensation to PIATCO prior to the takeover by the Government of NAIA 3. The fact that the Government resorted to eminent domain proceedings in the first place is a concession on its part of PIATCO's ownership. Indeed, if no such right is recognized, then there should be no impediment for the Government to seize control of NAIA 3 through ordinary ejectment proceedings. xxxx Thus, the property subject of expropriation, the NAIA 3 facilities, are real property owned by PIATCO. x x x (Emphasis ours.)66 It was further settled in Gingoyon that the expropriation proceedings shall be held in accordance with Republic Act No. 8974,67 thus: Unlike in the case of Rule 67, the application of Rep. Act No. 8974 will not contravene the 2004 Resolution, which requires the payment of just compensation before any takeover of the NAIA 3 facilities by the Government. The 2004 Resolution does not particularize the extent such payment must be effected before the takeover, but it unquestionably requires at least some degree of payment to the private property owner before a writ of possession may issue. The utilization of Rep. Act No. 8974 guarantees compliance with this bare minimum requirement, as it assures the private property owner the payment of, at the very least, the proffered value of the property to be seized. Such payment of the proffered value to the owner, followed by the issuance of the writ of possession in favor of the Government, is precisely the schematic under Rep.

50 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

Act No. 8974, one which facially complies with the prescription laid down in the 2004 Resolution. And finally, as to the determination of the amount due PIATCO, this Court ruled in Gingoyon that: Under Rep. Act No. 8974, the Government is required to "immediately pay" the owner of the property the amount equivalent to the sum of (1) one hundred percent (100%) of the value of the property based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the [BIR]; and (2) the value of the improvements and/or structures as determined under Section 7. As stated above, the BIR zonal valuation cannot apply in this case, thus the amount subject to immediate payment should be limited to "the value of the improvements and/or structures as determined under Section 7," with Section 7 referring to the "implementing rules and regulations for the equitable valuation of the improvements and/or structures on the land." Under the present implementing rules in place, the valuation of the improvements/structures are to be based using "the replacement cost method." However, the replacement cost is only one of the factors to be considered in determining the just compensation. In addition to Rep. Act No. 8974, the 2004 Resolution in Agan also mandated that the payment of just compensation should be in accordance with equity as well. Thus, in ascertaining the ultimate amount of just compensation, the duty of the trial court is to ensure that such amount conforms not only to the law, such as Rep. Act No. 8974, but to principles of equity as well. Admittedly, there is no way, at least for the present, to immediately ascertain the value of the improvements and structures since such valuation is a matter for factual determination. Yet Rep. Act No. 8974 permits an expedited means by which the Government can immediately take possession of the property without having to await precise determination of the valuation. Section 4(c) of Rep. Act No. 8974 states that "in case the completion of a government infrastructure project is of utmost urgency and importance, and there is no existing valuation of the area concerned, the implementing agency shall immediately pay the owner of the property its proferred value, taking into consideration the standards prescribed in Section 5 [of the law]." The "proffered value" may strike as a highly subjective standard based solely on the intuition of the government, but Rep. Act No. 8974 does provide relevant standards by which "proffered value" should be based, as well as the certainty of judicial determination of the propriety of the proffered value. In filing the complaint for expropriation, the Government alleged to have deposited the amount of P3 Billion earmarked for expropriation, representing the assessed value of the property. The making of the deposit, including the determination of the amount of

the deposit, was undertaken under the erroneous notion that Rule 67, and not Rep. Act No. 8974, is the applicable law. Still, as regards the amount, the Court sees no impediment to recognize this sum of P3 Billion as the proffered value under Section 4(b) of Rep. Act No. 8974. After all, in the initial determination of the proffered value, the Government is not strictly required to adhere to any predetermined standards, although its proffered value may later be subjected to judicial review using the standards enumerated under Section 5 of Rep. Act No. 8974.68 Gingoyon constitutes as the law of the case for the expropriation proceedings, docketed as Case No. 04-0876CFM, before the RTC of Pasay City. Law of the case has been defined in the following manner By "law of the case" is meant that "whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or decision between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case" so long as the "facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court" (21 C.J.S. 330). And once the decision becomes final, it is binding on all inferior courts and hence beyond their power and authority to alter or modify (Kabigting vs. Acting Director of Prisons, G.R. L-15548, October 30, 1962).69 A ruling rendered on the first appeal, constitutes the law of the case, and, even if erroneous, it may no longer be disturbed or modified since it has become final long ago.70 The extensive excerpts from Gingoyon demonstrate and emphasize that the Court had already adjudged the issues raised by Baterina, which he either conveniently overlooked or stubbornly refused to accept. The general rule precluding the relitigation of material facts or questions which were in issue and adjudicated in former action are commonly applied to all matters essentially connected with the subject matter of the litigation. Thus, it extends to questions necessarily involved in an issue, and necessarily adjudicated, or necessarily implied in the final judgment, although no specific finding may have been made in reference thereto, and although such matters were directly referred to in the pleadings and were not actually or formally presented. Under this rule, if the record of the former trial shows that the judgment could not have been rendered without deciding the particular matter, it will be considered as having settled that matter as to all future actions between the parties and if a judgment necessarily presupposes certain premises, they are as conclusive as the judgment itself. Reasons for the rule are that a judgment is an adjudication on all the matters which are essential to support it, and that every proposition assumed or decided by the court leading up to the final conclusion and

51 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

upon which such conclusion is based is as effectually passed upon as the ultimate question which is finally solved.71 Since the issues Baterina wishes to raise as an intervenor in Case No. 04-0876CFM were already settled with finality in both Agan and Gingoyon, then there is no point in still allowing his intervention. His Petition-in-Intervention would only be a relitigation of matters that had been previously adjudicated by no less than the Highest Court of the land. And, in no manner can the RTC of Pasay City in Case No. 04-0876CFM grant the reliefs he prayed for without departing from or running afoul of the final and executory Decisions of this Court in Agan and Gingoyon. While it is true that when this Court, in a Resolution dated 1 February 2006, dismissed the Motions for Intervention in Gingoyon, including that of Baterina, it also observed that the interests of the movants-in-intervention may be duly litigated in proceedings which are extant before the lower courts. This does not mean, however, that the said movants-in-interest were assured of being allowed as intervenors or that the reliefs they sought as such shall be granted by the trial courts. The fate of their intervention still rests on their interest or legal standing in the case and the merits of their arguments. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing: a. The Petition in G.R. No. 169914 is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit; and b. The Petition in G.R. No. 174166 is hereby likewise DISMISSED for being moot and academic. No costs. SO ORDERED. Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Tinga, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-de Castro, Brion, JJ., concur. Carpio, Azcuna, Nachura, Reyes, no part.

52 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 155001 May 5, 2003

DEMOSTHENES P. AGAN, JR., JOSEPH B. CATAHAN, JOSE MARI B. REUNILLA, MANUEL ANTONIO B. BOE, MAMERTO S. CLARA, REUEL E. DIMALANTA, MORY V. DOMALAON, CONRADO G. DIMAANO, LOLITA R. HIZON, REMEDIOS P. ADOLFO, BIENVENIDO C. HILARIO, MIASCOR WORKERS UNION - NATIONAL LABOR UNION (MWU-NLU), and PHILIPPINE AIRLINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PALEA), petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS CO., INC., MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS and SECRETARY LEANDRO M. MENDOZA, in his capacity as Head of the Department of Transportation and Communications, respondents, MIASCOR GROUNDHANDLING CORPORATION, DNATA-WINGS AVIATION SYSTEMS CORPORATION, MACROASIA-EUREST SERVICES, INC., MACROASIA-MENZIES AIRPORT SERVICES CORPORATION, MIASCOR CATERING SERVICES CORPORATION, MIASCOR AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE CORPORATION, and MIASCOR LOGISTICS CORPORATION, petitioners-in-intervention, x---------------------------------------------------------x G.R. No. 155547 May 5, 2003 SALACNIB F. BATERINA, CLAVEL A. MARTINEZ and CONSTANTINO G. JARAULA, petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS CO., INC., MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, SECRETARY LEANDRO M. MENDOZA, in his capacity as Head of the Department of Transportation and Communications, and SECRETARY SIMEON A. DATUMANONG, in his capacity as Head of the Department of Public Works and Highways, respondents, JACINTO V. PARAS, RAFAEL P. NANTES, EDUARDO C. ZIALCITA, WILLY BUYSON VILLARAMA, PROSPERO C. NOGRALES, PROSPERO A. PICHAY, JR., HARLIN CAST ABAYON, and BENASING O. MACARANBON, respondents-intervenors, x---------------------------------------------------------x G.R. No. 155661 May 5, 2003

CEFERINO C. LOPEZ, RAMON M. SALES, ALFREDO B. VALENCIA, MA. TERESA V. GAERLAN, LEONARDO DE LA ROSA, DINA C. DE LEON, VIRGIE CATAMIN RONALD SCHLOBOM, ANGELITO SANTOS, MA. LUISA M. PALCON and SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA PALIPARAN NG PILIPINAS (SMPP), petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS CO., INC., MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, SECRETARY LEANDRO M. MENDOZA, in his capacity as Head of the Department of Transportation and Communications, respondents. PUNO, J.: Petitioners and petitioners-in-intervention filed the instant petitions for prohibition under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court seeking to prohibit the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) and the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) and its Secretary from implementing the following agreements executed by the Philippine Government through the DOTC and the MIAA and the Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. (PIATCO): (1) the Concession Agreement signed on July 12, 1997, (2) the Amended and Restated Concession Agreement dated November 26, 1999, (3) the First Supplement to the Amended and Restated Concession Agreement dated August 27, 1999, (4) the Second Supplement to the Amended and Restated Concession Agreement dated September 4, 2000, and (5) the Third Supplement to the Amended and Restated Concession Agreement dated June 22, 2001 (collectively, the PIATCO Contracts). The facts are as follows: In August 1989, the DOTC engaged the services of Aeroport de Paris (ADP) to conduct a comprehensive study of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) and determine whether the present airport can cope with the traffic development up to the year 2010. The study consisted of two parts: first, traffic forecasts, capacity of existing facilities, NAIA future requirements, proposed master plans and development plans; and second, presentation of the preliminary design of the passenger terminal building. The ADP submitted a Draft Final Report to the DOTC in December 1989. Some time in 1993, six business leaders consisting of John Gokongwei, Andrew Gotianun, Henry Sy, Sr., Lucio Tan, George Ty and Alfonso Yuchengco met with then President Fidel V. Ramos to explore the possibility of investing in the construction and operation of a new international airport terminal. To signify their commitment to pursue the project, they formed the Asia's Emerging Dragon Corp. (AEDC) which was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on September 15, 1993.

53 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

On October 5, 1994, AEDC submitted an unsolicited proposal to the Government through the DOTC/MIAA for the development of NAIA International Passenger Terminal III (NAIA IPT III) under a build-operate-and-transfer arrangement pursuant to RA 6957 as amended by RA 7718 (BOT Law).1 On December 2, 1994, the DOTC issued Dept. Order No. 94-832 constituting the Prequalification Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) for the implementation of the NAIA IPT III project. On March 27, 1995, then DOTC Secretary Jose Garcia endorsed the proposal of AEDC to the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA). A revised proposal, however, was forwarded by the DOTC to NEDA on December 13, 1995. On January 5, 1996, the NEDA Investment Coordinating Council (NEDA ICC) Technical Board favorably endorsed the project to the ICC Cabinet Committee which approved the same, subject to certain conditions, on January 19, 1996. On February 13, 1996, the NEDA passed Board Resolution No. 2 which approved the NAIA IPT III project. On June 7, 14, and 21, 1996, DOTC/MIAA caused the publication in two daily newspapers of an invitation for competitive or comparative proposals on AEDC's unsolicited proposal, in accordance with Sec. 4-A of RA 6957, as amended. The alternative bidders were required to submit three (3) sealed envelopes on or before 5:00 p.m. of September 20, 1996. The first envelope should contain the Prequalification Documents, the second envelope the Technical Proposal, and the third envelope the Financial Proposal of the proponent. On June 20, 1996, PBAC Bulletin No. 1 was issued, postponing the availment of the Bid Documents and the submission of the comparative bid proposals. Interested firms were permitted to obtain the Request for Proposal Documents beginning June 28, 1996, upon submission of a written application and payment of a non-refundable fee of P50,000.00 (US$2,000). The Bid Documents issued by the PBAC provided among others that the proponent must have adequate capability to sustain the financing requirement for the detailed engineering, design, construction, operation, and maintenance phases of the project. The proponent would be evaluated based on its ability to provide a minimum amount of equity to the project, and its capacity to secure external financing for the project. On July 23, 1996, the PBAC issued PBAC Bulletin No. 2 inviting all bidders to a pre-bid conference on July 29, 1996. On August 16, 1996, the PBAC issued PBAC Bulletin No. 3 amending the Bid Documents. The following amendments were made on the Bid Documents:

a. Aside from the fixed Annual Guaranteed Payment, the proponent shall include in its financial proposal an additional percentage of gross revenue share of the Government, as follows: i. First 5 years ii. Next 10 years iii. Next 10 years 5.0% 7.5% 10.0%

b. The amount of the fixed Annual Guaranteed Payment shall be subject of the price challenge. Proponent may offer an Annual Guaranteed Payment which need not be of equal amount, but payment of which shall start upon site possession. c. The project proponent must have adequate capability to sustain the financing requirement for the detailed engineering, design, construction, and/or operation and maintenance phases of the project as the case may be. For purposes of prequalification, this capability shall be measured in terms of: i. Proof of the availability of the project proponent and/or the consortium to provide the minimum amount of equity for the project; and ii. a letter testimonial from reputable banks attesting that the project proponent and/or the members of the consortium are banking with them, that the project proponent and/or the members are of good financial standing, and have adequate resources. d. The basis for the prequalification shall be the proponent's compliance with the minimum technical and financial requirements provided in the Bid Documents and the IRR of the BOT Law. The minimum amount of equity shall be 30% of the Project Cost. e. Amendments to the draft Concession Agreement shall be issued from time to time. Said amendments shall only cover items that would not materially affect the preparation of the proponent's proposal. On August 29, 1996, the Second Pre-Bid Conference was held where certain clarifications were made. Upon the request of prospective bidder People's Air Cargo & Warehousing Co., Inc (Paircargo), the PBAC warranted that based on Sec. 11.6, Rule 11 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the BOT Law, only the proposed Annual Guaranteed Payment submitted by the challengers would be revealed to AEDC, and that the challengers' technical and financial proposals would remain confidential. The PBAC also clarified that the list of revenue sources contained in Annex 4.2a of the Bid Documents was merely indicative and that other revenue sources may be included by the proponent, subject to approval by DOTC/MIAA. Furthermore, the PBAC clarified that only those fees and charges denominated as Public Utility Fees would be subject to

54 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

regulation, and those charges which would be actually deemed Public Utility Fees could still be revised, depending on the outcome of PBAC's query on the matter with the Department of Justice. In September 1996, the PBAC issued Bid Bulletin No. 5, entitled "Answers to the Queries of PAIRCARGO as Per Letter Dated September 3 and 10, 1996." Paircargo's queries and the PBAC's responses were as follows: 1. It is difficult for Paircargo and Associates to meet the required minimum equity requirement as prescribed in Section 8.3.4 of the Bid Documents considering that the capitalization of each member company is so structured to meet the requirements and needs of their current respective business undertaking/activities. In order to comply with this equity requirement, Paircargo is requesting PBAC to just allow each member of (sic) corporation of the Joint Venture to just execute an agreement that embodies a commitment to infuse the required capital in case the project is awarded to the Joint Venture instead of increasing each corporation's current authorized capital stock just for prequalification purposes. In prequalification, the agency is interested in one's financial capability at the time of prequalification, not future or potential capability. A commitment to put up equity once awarded the project is not enough to establish that "present" financial capability. However, total financial capability of all member companies of the Consortium, to be established by submitting the respective companies' audited financial statements, shall be acceptable. 2. At present, Paircargo is negotiating with banks and other institutions for the extension of a Performance Security to the joint venture in the event that the Concessions Agreement (sic) is awarded to them. However, Paircargo is being required to submit a copy of the draft concession as one of the documentary requirements. Therefore, Paircargo is requesting that they'd (sic) be furnished copy of the approved negotiated agreement between the PBAC and the AEDC at the soonest possible time. A copy of the draft Concession Agreement is included in the Bid Documents. Any material changes would be made known to prospective challengers through bid bulletins. However, a final version will be issued before the award of contract. The PBAC also stated that it would require AEDC to sign Supplement C of the Bid Documents (Acceptance of Criteria and Waiver of Rights to Enjoin Project) and to submit the same with the required Bid Security. On September 20, 1996, the consortium composed of People's Air Cargo and Warehousing Co., Inc. (Paircargo), Phil. Air and Grounds Services, Inc. (PAGS) and Security Bank Corp. (Security Bank) (collectively, Paircargo Consortium) submitted their

competitive proposal to the PBAC. On September 23, 1996, the PBAC opened the first envelope containing the prequalification documents of the Paircargo Consortium. On the following day, September 24, 1996, the PBAC prequalified the Paircargo Consortium. On September 26, 1996, AEDC informed the PBAC in writing of its reservations as regards the Paircargo Consortium, which include: a. The lack of corporate approvals and financial capability of PAIRCARGO; b. The lack of corporate approvals and financial capability of PAGS; c. The prohibition imposed by RA 337, as amended (the General Banking Act) on the amount that Security Bank could legally invest in the project; d. The inclusion of Siemens as a contractor of the PAIRCARGO Joint Venture, for prequalification purposes; and e. The appointment of Lufthansa as the facility operator, in view of the Philippine requirement in the operation of a public utility. The PBAC gave its reply on October 2, 1996, informing AEDC that it had considered the issues raised by the latter, and that based on the documents submitted by Paircargo and the established prequalification criteria, the PBAC had found that the challenger, Paircargo, had prequalified to undertake the project. The Secretary of the DOTC approved the finding of the PBAC. The PBAC then proceeded with the opening of the second envelope of the Paircargo Consortium which contained its Technical Proposal. On October 3, 1996, AEDC reiterated its objections, particularly with respect to Paircargo's financial capability, in view of the restrictions imposed by Section 21-B of the General Banking Act and Sections 1380 and 1381 of the Manual Regulations for Banks and Other Financial Intermediaries. On October 7, 1996, AEDC again manifested its objections and requested that it be furnished with excerpts of the PBAC meeting and the accompanying technical evaluation report where each of the issues they raised were addressed. On October 16, 1996, the PBAC opened the third envelope submitted by AEDC and the Paircargo Consortium containing their respective financial proposals. Both proponents offered to build the NAIA Passenger Terminal III for at least $350 million at no cost to the government and to pay the government: 5% share in gross revenues for the first five years of operation, 7.5% share in gross revenues for the next ten years of operation, and 10% share in gross revenues for the last ten years of operation, in accordance with the Bid Documents. However, in addition to the foregoing, AEDC offered to pay the

55 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

government a total of P135 million as guaranteed payment for 27 years while Paircargo Consortium offered to pay the government a total of P17.75 billion for the same period. Thus, the PBAC formally informed AEDC that it had accepted the price proposal submitted by the Paircargo Consortium, and gave AEDC 30 working days or until November 28, 1996 within which to match the said bid, otherwise, the project would be awarded to Paircargo. As AEDC failed to match the proposal within the 30-day period, then DOTC Secretary Amado Lagdameo, on December 11, 1996, issued a notice to Paircargo Consortium regarding AEDC's failure to match the proposal. On February 27, 1997, Paircargo Consortium incorporated into Philippine International Airport Terminals Co., Inc. (PIATCO). AEDC subsequently protested the alleged undue preference given to PIATCO and reiterated its objections as regards the prequalification of PIATCO. On April 11, 1997, the DOTC submitted the concession agreement for the second-pass approval of the NEDA-ICC. On April 16, 1997, AEDC filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of the Proceedings, Mandamus and Injunction against the Secretary of the DOTC, the Chairman of the PBAC, the voting members of the PBAC and Pantaleon D. Alvarez, in his capacity as Chairman of the PBAC Technical Committee. On April 17, 1997, the NEDA-ICC conducted an ad referendum to facilitate the approval, on a no-objection basis, of the BOT agreement between the DOTC and PIATCO. As the ad referendum gathered only four (4) of the required six (6) signatures, the NEDA merely noted the agreement. On July 9, 1997, the DOTC issued the notice of award for the project to PIATCO. On July 12, 1997, the Government, through then DOTC Secretary Arturo T. Enrile, and PIATCO, through its President, Henry T. Go, signed the "Concession Agreement for the Build-Operate-and-Transfer Arrangement of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Passenger Terminal III" (1997 Concession Agreement). The Government granted PIATCO the franchise to operate and maintain the said terminal during the concession period and to collect the fees, rentals and other charges in accordance with the rates or schedules stipulated in the 1997 Concession Agreement. The Agreement provided that the concession period shall be for twenty-five (25) years commencing from the inservice date, and may be renewed at the option of the Government for a period not exceeding twenty-five (25) years. At the end of the concession period, PIATCO shall transfer the development facility to MIAA.

On November 26, 1998, the Government and PIATCO signed an Amended and Restated Concession Agreement (ARCA). Among the provisions of the 1997 Concession Agreement that were amended by the ARCA were: Sec. 1.11 pertaining to the definition of "certificate of completion"; Sec. 2.05 pertaining to the Special Obligations of GRP; Sec. 3.02 (a) dealing with the exclusivity of the franchise given to the Concessionaire; Sec. 4.04 concerning the assignment by Concessionaire of its interest in the Development Facility; Sec. 5.08 (c) dealing with the proceeds of Concessionaire's insurance; Sec. 5.10 with respect to the temporary take-over of operations by GRP; Sec. 5.16 pertaining to the taxes, duties and other imposts that may be levied on the Concessionaire; Sec. 6.03 as regards the periodic adjustment of public utility fees and charges; the entire Article VIII concerning the provisions on the termination of the contract; and Sec. 10.02 providing for the venue of the arbitration proceedings in case a dispute or controversy arises between the parties to the agreement. Subsequently, the Government and PIATCO signed three Supplements to the ARCA. The First Supplement was signed on August 27, 1999; the Second Supplement on September 4, 2000; and the Third Supplement on June 22, 2001 (collectively, Supplements). The First Supplement to the ARCA amended Sec. 1.36 of the ARCA defining "Revenues" or "Gross Revenues"; Sec. 2.05 (d) of the ARCA referring to the obligation of MIAA to provide sufficient funds for the upkeep, maintenance, repair and/or replacement of all airport facilities and equipment which are owned or operated by MIAA; and further providing additional special obligations on the part of GRP aside from those already enumerated in Sec. 2.05 of the ARCA. The First Supplement also provided a stipulation as regards the construction of a surface road to connect NAIA Terminal II and Terminal III in lieu of the proposed access tunnel crossing Runway 13/31; the swapping of obligations between GRP and PIATCO regarding the improvement of Sales Road; and the changes in the timetable. It also amended Sec. 6.01 (c) of the ARCA pertaining to the Disposition of Terminal Fees; Sec. 6.02 of the ARCA by inserting an introductory paragraph; and Sec. 6.02 (a) (iii) of the ARCA referring to the Payments of Percentage Share in Gross Revenues. The Second Supplement to the ARCA contained provisions concerning the clearing, removal, demolition or disposal of subterranean structures uncovered or discovered at the site of the construction of the terminal by the Concessionaire. It defined the scope of works; it provided for the procedure for the demolition of the said structures and the consideration for the same which the GRP shall pay PIATCO; it provided for time extensions, incremental and consequential costs and losses consequent to the existence of such structures; and it provided for some additional obligations on the part of PIATCO as regards the said structures.

56 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

Finally, the Third Supplement provided for the obligations of the Concessionaire as regards the construction of the surface road connecting Terminals II and III. Meanwhile, the MIAA which is charged with the maintenance and operation of the NAIA Terminals I and II, had existing concession contracts with various service providers to offer international airline airport services, such as in-flight catering, passenger handling, ramp and ground support, aircraft maintenance and provisions, cargo handling and warehousing, and other services, to several international airlines at the NAIA. Some of these service providers are the Miascor Group, DNATA-Wings Aviation Systems Corp., and the MacroAsia Group. Miascor, DNATA and MacroAsia, together with Philippine Airlines (PAL), are the dominant players in the industry with an aggregate market share of 70%. On September 17, 2002, the workers of the international airline service providers, claiming that they stand to lose their employment upon the implementation of the questioned agreements, filed before this Court a petition for prohibition to enjoin the enforcement of said agreements.2 On October 15, 2002, the service providers, joining the cause of the petitioning workers, filed a motion for intervention and a petition-in-intervention. On October 24, 2002, Congressmen Salacnib Baterina, Clavel Martinez and Constantino Jaraula filed a similar petition with this Court.3 On November 6, 2002, several employees of the MIAA likewise filed a petition assailing the legality of the various agreements.4 On December 11, 2002. another group of Congressmen, Hon. Jacinto V. Paras, Rafael P. Nantes, Eduardo C. Zialcita, Willie B. Villarama, Prospero C. Nograles, Prospero A. Pichay, Jr., Harlin Cast Abayon and Benasing O. Macaranbon, moved to intervene in the case as Respondents-Intervenors. They filed their Comment-In-Intervention defending the validity of the assailed agreements and praying for the dismissal of the petitions. During the pendency of the case before this Court, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, on November 29, 2002, in her speech at the 2002 Golden Shell Export Awards at Malacaang Palace, stated that she will not "honor (PIATCO) contracts which the Executive Branch's legal offices have concluded (as) null and void."5 Respondent PIATCO filed its Comments to the present petitions on November 7 and 27, 2002. The Office of the Solicitor General and the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel filed their respective Comments in behalf of the public respondents. On December 10, 2002, the Court heard the case on oral argument. After the oral argument, the Court then resolved in open court to require the parties to file

simultaneously their respective Memoranda in amplification of the issues heard in the oral arguments within 30 days and to explore the possibility of arbitration or mediation as provided in the challenged contracts. In their consolidated Memorandum, the Office of the Solicitor General and the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel prayed that the present petitions be given due course and that judgment be rendered declaring the 1997 Concession Agreement, the ARCA and the Supplements thereto void for being contrary to the Constitution, the BOT Law and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. On March 6, 2003, respondent PIATCO informed the Court that on March 4, 2003 PIATCO commenced arbitration proceedings before the International Chamber of Commerce, International Court of Arbitration (ICC) by filing a Request for Arbitration with the Secretariat of the ICC against the Government of the Republic of the Philippines acting through the DOTC and MIAA. In the present cases, the Court is again faced with the task of resolving complicated issues made difficult by their intersecting legal and economic implications. The Court is aware of the far reaching fall out effects of the ruling which it makes today. For more than a century and whenever the exigencies of the times demand it, this Court has never shirked from its solemn duty to dispense justice and resolve "actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction."6 To be sure, this Court will not begin to do otherwise today. We shall first dispose of the procedural issues raised by respondent PIATCO which they allege will bar the resolution of the instant controversy. Petitioners' Legal Standing to File the present Petitions a. G.R. Nos. 155001 and 155661 In G.R. No. 155001 individual petitioners are employees of various service providers7 having separate concession contracts with MIAA and continuing service agreements with various international airlines to provide in-flight catering, passenger handling, ramp and ground support, aircraft maintenance and provisions, cargo handling and warehousing and other services. Also included as petitioners are labor unions MIASCOR Workers Union-National Labor Union and Philippine Airlines Employees Association. These petitioners filed the instant action for prohibition as taxpayers and as parties whose rights and interests stand to be violated by the implementation of the PIATCO Contracts. Petitioners-Intervenors in the same case are all corporations organized and existing under Philippine laws engaged in the business of providing in-flight catering, passenger

57 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

handling, ramp and ground support, aircraft maintenance and provisions, cargo handling and warehousing and other services to several international airlines at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport. Petitioners-Intervenors allege that as tax-paying international airline and airport-related service operators, each one of them stands to be irreparably injured by the implementation of the PIATCO Contracts. Each of the petitioners-intervenors have separate and subsisting concession agreements with MIAA and with various international airlines which they allege are being interfered with and violated by respondent PIATCO. In G.R. No. 155661, petitioners constitute employees of MIAA and Samahang Manggagawa sa Paliparan ng Pilipinas - a legitimate labor union and accredited as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all the employees in MIAA. Petitioners anchor their petition for prohibition on the nullity of the contracts entered into by the Government and PIATCO regarding the build-operate-and-transfer of the NAIA IPT III. They filed the petition as taxpayers and persons who have a legitimate interest to protect in the implementation of the PIATCO Contracts. Petitioners in both cases raise the argument that the PIATCO Contracts contain stipulations which directly contravene numerous provisions of the Constitution, specific provisions of the BOT Law and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, and public policy. Petitioners contend that the DOTC and the MIAA, by entering into said contracts, have committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction which can be remedied only by a writ of prohibition, there being no plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In particular, petitioners assail the provisions in the 1997 Concession Agreement and the ARCA which grant PIATCO the exclusive right to operate a commercial international passenger terminal within the Island of Luzon, except those international airports already existing at the time of the execution of the agreement. The contracts further provide that upon the commencement of operations at the NAIA IPT III, the Government shall cause the closure of Ninoy Aquino International Airport Passenger Terminals I and II as international passenger terminals. With respect to existing concession agreements between MIAA and international airport service providers regarding certain services or operations, the 1997 Concession Agreement and the ARCA uniformly provide that such services or operations will not be carried over to the NAIA IPT III and PIATCO is under no obligation to permit such carry over except through a separate agreement duly entered into with PIATCO.8 With respect to the petitioning service providers and their employees, upon the commencement of operations of the NAIA IPT III, they allege that they will be effectively barred from providing international airline airport services at the NAIA Terminals I and II

as all international airlines and passengers will be diverted to the NAIA IPT III. The petitioning service providers will thus be compelled to contract with PIATCO alone for such services, with no assurance that subsisting contracts with MIAA and other international airlines will be respected. Petitioning service providers stress that despite the very competitive market, the substantial capital investments required and the high rate of fees, they entered into their respective contracts with the MIAA with the understanding that the said contracts will be in force for the stipulated period, and thereafter, renewed so as to allow each of the petitioning service providers to recoup their investments and obtain a reasonable return thereon. Petitioning employees of various service providers at the NAIA Terminals I and II and of MIAA on the other hand allege that with the closure of the NAIA Terminals I and II as international passenger terminals under the PIATCO Contracts, they stand to lose employment. The question on legal standing is whether such parties have "alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions."9 Accordingly, it has been held that the interest of a person assailing the constitutionality of a statute must be direct and personal. He must be able to show, not only that the law or any government act is invalid, but also that he sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite way. It must appear that the person complaining has been or is about to be denied some right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or that he is about to be subjected to some burdens or penalties by reason of the statute or act complained of. 10 We hold that petitioners have the requisite standing. In the above-mentioned cases, petitioners have a direct and substantial interest to protect by reason of the implementation of the PIATCO Contracts. They stand to lose their source of livelihood, a property right which is zealously protected by the Constitution. Moreover, subsisting concession agreements between MIAA and petitioners-intervenors and service contracts between international airlines and petitioners-intervenors stand to be nullified or terminated by the operation of the NAIA IPT III under the PIATCO Contracts. The financial prejudice brought about by the PIATCO Contracts on petitioners and petitioners-intervenors in these cases are legitimate interests sufficient to confer on them the requisite standing to file the instant petitions. b. G.R. No. 155547 In G.R. No. 155547, petitioners filed the petition for prohibition as members of the House of Representatives, citizens and taxpayers. They allege that as members of the

58 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

House of Representatives, they are especially interested in the PIATCO Contracts, because the contracts compel the Government and/or the House of Representatives to appropriate funds necessary to comply with the provisions therein.11 They cite provisions of the PIATCO Contracts which require disbursement of unappropriated amounts in compliance with the contractual obligations of the Government. They allege that the Government obligations in the PIATCO Contracts which compel government expenditure without appropriation is a curtailment of their prerogatives as legislators, contrary to the mandate of the Constitution that "[n]o money shall be paid out of the treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law."12 Standing is a peculiar concept in constitutional law because in some cases, suits are not brought by parties who have been personally injured by the operation of a law or any other government act but by concerned citizens, taxpayers or voters who actually sue in the public interest. Although we are not unmindful of the cases of Imus Electric Co. v. Municipality of Imus13 and Gonzales v. Raquiza14 wherein this Court held that appropriation must be made only on amounts immediately demandable, public interest demands that we take a more liberal view in determining whether the petitioners suing as legislators, taxpayers and citizens have locus standi to file the instant petition. In Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Guingona,15 this Court held "[i]n line with the liberal policy of this Court on locus standi, ordinary taxpayers, members of Congress, and even association of planters, and non-profit civic organizations were allowed to initiate and prosecute actions before this Court to question the constitutionality or validity of laws, acts, decisions, rulings, or orders of various government agencies or instrumentalities." 16 Further, "insofar as taxpayers' suits are concerned . . . (this Court) is not devoid of discretion as to whether or not it should be entertained."17 As such ". . . even if, strictly speaking, they [the petitioners] are not covered by the definition, it is still within the wide discretion of the Court to waive the requirement and so remove the impediment to its addressing and resolving the serious constitutional questions raised."18 In view of the serious legal questions involved and their impact on public interest, we resolve to grant standing to the petitioners. Other Procedural Matters Respondent PIATCO further alleges that this Court is without jurisdiction to review the instant cases as factual issues are involved which this Court is ill-equipped to resolve. Moreover, PIATCO alleges that submission of this controversy to this Court at the first instance is a violation of the rule on hierarchy of courts. They contend that trial courts have concurrent jurisdiction with this Court with respect to a special civil action for prohibition and hence, following the rule on hierarchy of courts, resort must first be had before the trial courts.

After a thorough study and careful evaluation of the issues involved, this Court is of the view that the crux of the instant controversy involves significant legal questions. The facts necessary to resolve these legal questions are well established and, hence, need not be determined by a trial court. The rule on hierarchy of courts will not also prevent this Court from assuming jurisdiction over the cases at bar. The said rule may be relaxed when the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts or where exceptional and compelling circumstances justify availment of a remedy within and calling for the exercise of this Court's primary jurisdiction.19 It is easy to discern that exceptional circumstances exist in the cases at bar that call for the relaxation of the rule. Both petitioners and respondents agree that these cases are of transcendental importance as they involve the construction and operation of the country's premier international airport. Moreover, the crucial issues submitted for resolution are of first impression and they entail the proper legal interpretation of key provisions of the Constitution, the BOT Law and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. Thus, considering the nature of the controversy before the Court, procedural bars may be lowered to give way for the speedy disposition of the instant cases. Legal Effect of the Commencement of Arbitration Proceedings by PIATCO There is one more procedural obstacle which must be overcome. The Court is aware that arbitration proceedings pursuant to Section 10.02 of the ARCA have been filed at the instance of respondent PIATCO. Again, we hold that the arbitration step taken by PIATCO will not oust this Court of its jurisdiction over the cases at bar. In Del Monte Corporation-USA v. Court of Appeals,20 even after finding that the arbitration clause in the Distributorship Agreement in question is valid and the dispute between the parties is arbitrable, this Court affirmed the trial court's decision denying petitioner's Motion to Suspend Proceedings pursuant to the arbitration clause under the contract. In so ruling, this Court held that as contracts produce legal effect between the parties, their assigns and heirs, only the parties to the Distributorship Agreement are bound by its terms, including the arbitration clause stipulated therein. This Court ruled that arbitration proceedings could be called for but only with respect to the parties to the contract in question. Considering that there are parties to the case who are neither parties to the Distributorship Agreement nor heirs or assigns of the parties thereto, this Court, citing its previous ruling in Salas, Jr. v. Laperal Realty Corporation, 21 held that to tolerate the splitting of proceedings by allowing arbitration as to some of the parties on the one hand and trial for the others on the other hand would, in effect, result in multiplicity of suits, duplicitous procedure and unnecessary delay.22 Thus, we ruled

59 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

that the interest of justice would best be served if the trial court hears and adjudicates the case in a single and complete proceeding. It is established that petitioners in the present cases who have presented legitimate interests in the resolution of the controversy are not parties to the PIATCO Contracts. Accordingly, they cannot be bound by the arbitration clause provided for in the ARCA and hence, cannot be compelled to submit to arbitration proceedings. A speedy and decisive resolution of all the critical issues in the present controversy, including those raised by petitioners, cannot be made before an arbitral tribunal. The object of arbitration is precisely to allow an expeditious determination of a dispute. This objective would not be met if this Court were to allow the parties to settle the cases by arbitration as there are certain issues involving non-parties to the PIATCO Contracts which the arbitral tribunal will not be equipped to resolve. Now, to the merits of the instant controversy. I Is PIATCO a qualified bidder? Public respondents argue that the Paircargo Consortium, PIATCO's predecessor, was not a duly pre-qualified bidder on the unsolicited proposal submitted by AEDC as the Paircargo Consortium failed to meet the financial capability required under the BOT Law and the Bid Documents. They allege that in computing the ability of the Paircargo Consortium to meet the minimum equity requirements for the project, the entire net worth of Security Bank, a member of the consortium, should not be considered. PIATCO relies, on the other hand, on the strength of the Memorandum dated October 14, 1996 issued by the DOTC Undersecretary Primitivo C. Cal stating that the Paircargo Consortium is found to have a combined net worth of P3,900,000,000.00, sufficient to meet the equity requirements of the project. The said Memorandum was in response to a letter from Mr. Antonio Henson of AEDC to President Fidel V. Ramos questioning the financial capability of the Paircargo Consortium on the ground that it does not have the financial resources to put up the required minimum equity of P2,700,000,000.00. This contention is based on the restriction under R.A. No. 337, as amended or the General Banking Act that a commercial bank cannot invest in any single enterprise in an amount more than 15% of its net worth. In the said Memorandum, Undersecretary Cal opined: The Bid Documents, as clarified through Bid Bulletin Nos. 3 and 5, require that financial capability will be evaluated based on total financial capability of all the member companies of the [Paircargo] Consortium. In this connection, the Challenger was found to have a combined net worth of P3,926,421,242.00 that could support a project costing approximately P13 Billion.

It is not a requirement that the net worth must be "unrestricted." To impose that as a requirement now will be nothing less than unfair. The financial statement or the net worth is not the sole basis in establishing financial capability. As stated in Bid Bulletin No. 3, financial capability may also be established by testimonial letters issued by reputable banks. The Challenger has complied with this requirement. To recap, net worth reflected in the Financial Statement should not be taken as the amount of the money to be used to answer the required thirty percent (30%) equity of the challenger but rather to be used in establishing if there is enough basis to believe that the challenger can comply with the required 30% equity. In fact, proof of sufficient equity is required as one of the conditions for award of contract (Section 12.1 IRR of the BOT Law) but not for pre-qualification (Section 5.4 of the same document).23 Under the BOT Law, in case of a build-operate-and-transfer arrangement, the contract shall be awarded to the bidder "who, having satisfied the minimum financial, technical, organizational and legal standards" required by the law, has submitted the lowest bid and most favorable terms of the project.24 Further, the 1994 Implementing Rules and Regulations of the BOT Law provide: Section 5.4 Pre-qualification Requirements. xxx xxx xxx

c. Financial Capability: The project proponent must have adequate capability to sustain the financing requirements for the detailed engineering design, construction and/or operation and maintenance phases of the project, as the case may be. For purposes of pre-qualification, this capability shall be measured in terms of (i) proof of the ability of the project proponent and/or the consortium to provide a minimum amount of equity to the project, and (ii) a letter testimonial from reputable banks attesting that the project proponent and/or members of the consortium are banking with them, that they are in good financial standing, and that they have adequate resources. The government agency/LGU concerned shall determine on a project-to-project basis and before pre-qualification, the minimum amount of equity needed. (emphasis supplied) Pursuant to this provision, the PBAC issued PBAC Bulletin No. 3 dated August 16, 1996 amending the financial capability requirements for pre-qualification of the project proponent as follows: 6. Basis of Pre-qualification

60 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

The basis for the pre-qualification shall be on the compliance of the proponent to the minimum technical and financial requirements provided in the Bid Documents and in the IRR of the BOT Law, R.A. No. 6957, as amended by R.A. 7718. The minimum amount of equity to which the proponent's financial capability will be based shall be thirty percent (30%) of the project cost instead of the twenty percent (20%) specified in Section 3.6.4 of the Bid Documents. This is to correlate with the required debt-to-equity ratio of 70:30 in Section 2.01a of the draft concession agreement. The debt portion of the project financing should not exceed 70% of the actual project cost. Accordingly, based on the above provisions of law, the Paircargo Consortium or any challenger to the unsolicited proposal of AEDC has to show that it possesses the requisite financial capability to undertake the project in the minimum amount of 30% of the project cost through (i) proof of the ability to provide a minimum amount of equity to the project, and (ii) a letter testimonial from reputable banks attesting that the project proponent or members of the consortium are banking with them, that they are in good financial standing, and that they have adequate resources. As the minimum project cost was estimated to be US$350,000,000.00 or roughly P9,183,650,000.00,25 the Paircargo Consortium had to show to the satisfaction of the PBAC that it had the ability to provide the minimum equity for the project in the amount of at least P2,755,095,000.00. Paircargo's Audited Financial Statements as of 1993 and 1994 indicated that it had a net worth of P2,783,592.00 and P3,123,515.00 respectively.26 PAGS' Audited Financial Statements as of 1995 indicate that it has approximately P26,735,700.00 to invest as its equity for the project.27 Security Bank's Audited Financial Statements as of 1995 show that it has a net worth equivalent to its capital funds in the amount of P3,523,504,377.00.28 We agree with public respondents that with respect to Security Bank, the entire amount of its net worth could not be invested in a single undertaking or enterprise, whether allied or non-allied in accordance with the provisions of R.A. No. 337, as amended or the General Banking Act: Sec. 21-B. The provisions in this or in any other Act to the contrary notwithstanding, the Monetary Board, whenever it shall deem appropriate and necessary to further national development objectives or support national priority projects, may authorize a commercial bank, a bank authorized to provide commercial banking services, as well as a government-owned and controlled bank, to operate under an expanded commercial banking authority and by virtue thereof exercise, in addition to powers

authorized for commercial banks, the powers of an Investment House as provided in Presidential Decree No. 129, invest in the equity of a non-allied undertaking, or own a majority or all of the equity in a financial intermediary other than a commercial bank or a bank authorized to provide commercial banking services: Provided, That (a) the total investment in equities shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the net worth of the bank; (b) the equity investment in any one enterprise whether allied or non-allied shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the net worth of the bank; (c) the equity investment of the bank, or of its wholly or majority-owned subsidiary, in a single non-allied undertaking shall not exceed thirty-five percent (35%) of the total equity in the enterprise nor shall it exceed thirty-five percent (35%) of the voting stock in that enterprise; and (d) the equity investment in other banks shall be deducted from the investing bank's net worth for purposes of computing the prescribed ratio of net worth to risk assets. xxx xxx xxx

Further, the 1993 Manual of Regulations for Banks provides: SECTION X383. Other Limitations and Restrictions. The following limitations and restrictions shall also apply regarding equity investments of banks. a. In any single enterprise. The equity investments of banks in any single enterprise shall not exceed at any time fifteen percent (15%) of the net worth of the investing bank as defined in Sec. X106 and Subsec. X121.5. Thus, the maximum amount that Security Bank could validly invest in the Paircargo Consortium is only P528,525,656.55, representing 15% of its entire net worth. The total net worth therefore of the Paircargo Consortium, after considering the maximum amounts that may be validly invested by each of its members is P558,384,871.55 or only 6.08% of the project cost,29 an amount substantially less than the prescribed minimum equity investment required for the project in the amount of P2,755,095,000.00 or 30% of the project cost. The purpose of pre-qualification in any public bidding is to determine, at the earliest opportunity, the ability of the bidder to undertake the project. Thus, with respect to the bidder's financial capacity at the pre-qualification stage, the law requires the government agency to examine and determine the ability of the bidder to fund the entire cost of the project by considering the maximum amounts that each bidder may invest in the project at the time of pre-qualification. The PBAC has determined that any prospective bidder for the construction, operation and maintenance of the NAIA IPT III project should prove that it has the ability to provide equity in the minimum amount of 30% of the project cost, in accordance with

61 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

the 70:30 debt-to-equity ratio prescribed in the Bid Documents. Thus, in the case of Paircargo Consortium, the PBAC should determine the maximum amounts that each member of the consortium may commit for the construction, operation and maintenance of the NAIA IPT III project at the time of pre-qualification. With respect to Security Bank, the maximum amount which may be invested by it would only be 15% of its net worth in view of the restrictions imposed by the General Banking Act. Disregarding the investment ceilings provided by applicable law would not result in a proper evaluation of whether or not a bidder is pre-qualified to undertake the project as for all intents and purposes, such ceiling or legal restriction determines the true maximum amount which a bidder may invest in the project. Further, the determination of whether or not a bidder is pre-qualified to undertake the project requires an evaluation of the financial capacity of the said bidder at the time the bid is submitted based on the required documents presented by the bidder. The PBAC should not be allowed to speculate on the future financial ability of the bidder to undertake the project on the basis of documents submitted. This would open doors to abuse and defeat the very purpose of a public bidding. This is especially true in the case at bar which involves the investment of billions of pesos by the project proponent. The relevant government authority is duty-bound to ensure that the awardee of the contract possesses the minimum required financial capability to complete the project. To allow the PBAC to estimate the bidder's future financial capability would not secure the viability and integrity of the project. A restrictive and conservative application of the rules and procedures of public bidding is necessary not only to protect the impartiality and regularity of the proceedings but also to ensure the financial and technical reliability of the project. It has been held that: The basic rule in public bidding is that bids should be evaluated based on the required documents submitted before and not after the opening of bids. Otherwise, the foundation of a fair and competitive public bidding would be defeated. Strict observance of the rules, regulations, and guidelines of the bidding process is the only safeguard to a fair, honest and competitive public bidding.30 Thus, if the maximum amount of equity that a bidder may invest in the project at the time the bids are submitted falls short of the minimum amounts required to be put up by the bidder, said bidder should be properly disqualified. Considering that at the prequalification stage, the maximum amounts which the Paircargo Consortium may invest in the project fell short of the minimum amounts prescribed by the PBAC, we hold that Paircargo Consortium was not a qualified bidder. Thus the award of the contract by the PBAC to the Paircargo Consortium, a disqualified bidder, is null and void.

While it would be proper at this juncture to end the resolution of the instant controversy, as the legal effects of the disqualification of respondent PIATCO's predecessor would come into play and necessarily result in the nullity of all the subsequent contracts entered by it in pursuance of the project, the Court feels that it is necessary to discuss in full the pressing issues of the present controversy for a complete resolution thereof. II Is the 1997 Concession Agreement valid? Petitioners and public respondents contend that the 1997 Concession Agreement is invalid as it contains provisions that substantially depart from the draft Concession Agreement included in the Bid Documents. They maintain that a substantial departure from the draft Concession Agreement is a violation of public policy and renders the 1997 Concession Agreement null and void. PIATCO maintains, however, that the Concession Agreement attached to the Bid Documents is intended to be a draft, i.e., subject to change, alteration or modification, and that this intention was clear to all participants, including AEDC, and DOTC/MIAA. It argued further that said intention is expressed in Part C (6) of Bid Bulletin No. 3 issued by the PBAC which states: 6. Amendments to the Draft Concessions Agreement Amendments to the Draft Concessions Agreement shall be issued from time to time. Said amendments shall only cover items that would not materially affect the preparation of the proponent's proposal. By its very nature, public bidding aims to protect the public interest by giving the public the best possible advantages through open competition. Thus: Competition must be legitimate, fair and honest. In the field of government contract law, competition requires, not only `bidding upon a common standard, a common basis, upon the same thing, the same subject matter, the same undertaking,' but also that it be legitimate, fair and honest; and not designed to injure or defraud the government.31 An essential element of a publicly bidded contract is that all bidders must be on equal footing. Not simply in terms of application of the procedural rules and regulations imposed by the relevant government agency, but more importantly, on the contract bidded upon. Each bidder must be able to bid on the same thing. The rationale is obvious. If the winning bidder is allowed to later include or modify certain provisions in the contract awarded such that the contract is altered in any material respect, then the essence of fair competition in the public bidding is destroyed. A public bidding would indeed be a farce if after the contract is awarded, the winning bidder may modify the

62 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

contract and include provisions which are favorable to it that were not previously made available to the other bidders. Thus: It is inherent in public biddings that there shall be a fair competition among the bidders. The specifications in such biddings provide the common ground or basis for the bidders. The specifications should, accordingly, operate equally or indiscriminately upon all bidders.32 The same rule was restated by Chief Justice Stuart of the Supreme Court of Minnesota: The law is well settled that where, as in this case, municipal authorities can only let a contract for public work to the lowest responsible bidder, the proposals and specifications therefore must be so framed as to permit free and full competition. Nor can they enter into a contract with the best bidder containing substantial provisions beneficial to him, not included or contemplated in the terms and specifications upon which the bids were invited.33 In fact, in the PBAC Bid Bulletin No. 3 cited by PIATCO to support its argument that the draft concession agreement is subject to amendment, the pertinent portion of which was quoted above, the PBAC also clarified that "[s]aid amendments shall only cover items that would not materially affect the preparation of the proponent's proposal." While we concede that a winning bidder is not precluded from modifying or amending certain provisions of the contract bidded upon, such changes must not constitute substantial or material amendments that would alter the basic parameters of the contract and would constitute a denial to the other bidders of the opportunity to bid on the same terms. Hence, the determination of whether or not a modification or amendment of a contract bidded out constitutes a substantial amendment rests on whether the contract, when taken as a whole, would contain substantially different terms and conditions that would have the effect of altering the technical and/or financial proposals previously submitted by other bidders. The alterations and modifications in the contract executed between the government and the winning bidder must be such as to render such executed contract to be an entirely different contract from the one that was bidded upon. In the case of Caltex (Philippines), Inc. v. Delgado Brothers, Inc.,34 this Court quoted with approval the ruling of the trial court that an amendment to a contract awarded through public bidding, when such subsequent amendment was made without a new public bidding, is null and void: The Court agrees with the contention of counsel for the plaintiffs that the due execution of a contract after public bidding is a limitation upon the right of the contracting parties to alter or amend it without another public bidding, for otherwise what would a public

bidding be good for if after the execution of a contract after public bidding, the contracting parties may alter or amend the contract, or even cancel it, at their will? Public biddings are held for the protection of the public, and to give the public the best possible advantages by means of open competition between the bidders. He who bids or offers the best terms is awarded the contract subject of the bid, and it is obvious that such protection and best possible advantages to the public will disappear if the parties to a contract executed after public bidding may alter or amend it without another previous public bidding.35 Hence, the question that comes to fore is this: is the 1997 Concession Agreement the same agreement that was offered for public bidding, i.e., the draft Concession Agreement attached to the Bid Documents? A close comparison of the draft Concession Agreement attached to the Bid Documents and the 1997 Concession Agreement reveals that the documents differ in at least two material respects: a. Modification on the Public Utility Revenues and Non-Public Utility Revenues that may be collected by PIATCO The fees that may be imposed and collected by PIATCO under the draft Concession Agreement and the 1997 Concession Agreement may be classified into three distinct categories: (1) fees which are subject to periodic adjustment of once every two years in accordance with a prescribed parametric formula and adjustments are made effective only upon written approval by MIAA; (2) fees other than those included in the first category which maybe adjusted by PIATCO whenever it deems necessary without need for consent of DOTC/MIAA; and (3) new fees and charges that may be imposed by PIATCO which have not been previously imposed or collected at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Passenger Terminal I, pursuant to Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993, as amended. The glaring distinctions between the draft Concession Agreement and the 1997 Concession Agreement lie in the types of fees included in each category and the extent of the supervision and regulation which MIAA is allowed to exercise in relation thereto. For fees under the first category, i.e., those which are subject to periodic adjustment in accordance with a prescribed parametric formula and effective only upon written approval by MIAA, the draft Concession Agreement includes the following:36 (1) aircraft parking fees; (2) aircraft tacking fees;

63 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

(3) groundhandling fees; (4) rentals and airline offices; (5) check-in counter rentals; and (6) porterage fees. Under the 1997 Concession Agreement, fees which are subject to adjustment and effective upon MIAA approval are classified as "Public Utility Revenues" and include:37 (1) aircraft parking fees; (2) aircraft tacking fees; (3) check-in counter fees; and (4) Terminal Fees. The implication of the reduced number of fees that are subject to MIAA approval is best appreciated in relation to fees included in the second category identified above. Under the 1997 Concession Agreement, fees which PIATCO may adjust whenever it deems necessary without need for consent of DOTC/MIAA are "Non-Public Utility Revenues" and is defined as "all other income not classified as Public Utility Revenues derived from operations of the Terminal and the Terminal Complex."38 Thus, under the 1997 Concession Agreement, ground handling fees, rentals from airline offices and porterage fees are no longer subject to MIAA regulation. Further, under Section 6.03 of the draft Concession Agreement, MIAA reserves the right to regulate (1) lobby and vehicular parking fees and (2) other new fees and charges that may be imposed by PIATCO. Such regulation may be made by periodic adjustment and is effective only upon written approval of MIAA. The full text of said provision is quoted below: Section 6.03. Periodic Adjustment in Fees and Charges. Adjustments in the aircraft parking fees, aircraft tacking fees, groundhandling fees, rentals and airline offices, check-in-counter rentals and porterage fees shall be allowed only once every two years and in accordance with the Parametric Formula attached hereto as Annex F. Provided that adjustments shall be made effective only after the written express approval of the MIAA. Provided, further, that such approval of the MIAA, shall be contingent only on the conformity of the adjustments with the above said parametric formula. The first adjustment shall be made prior to the In-Service Date of the Terminal. The MIAA reserves the right to regulate under the foregoing terms and conditions the lobby and vehicular parking fees and other new fees and charges as contemplated in

paragraph 2 of Section 6.01 if in its judgment the users of the airport shall be deprived of a free option for the services they cover.39 On the other hand, the equivalent provision under the 1997 Concession Agreement reads: Section 6.03 Periodic Adjustment in Fees and Charges. xxx xxx xxx

(c) Concessionaire shall at all times be judicious in fixing fees and charges constituting Non-Public Utility Revenues in order to ensure that End Users are not unreasonably deprived of services. While the vehicular parking fee, porterage fee and greeter/well wisher fee constitute Non-Public Utility Revenues of Concessionaire, GRP may intervene and require Concessionaire to explain and justify the fee it may set from time to time, if in the reasonable opinion of GRP the said fees have become exorbitant resulting in the unreasonable deprivation of End Users of such services.40 Thus, under the 1997 Concession Agreement, with respect to (1) vehicular parking fee, (2) porterage fee and (3) greeter/well wisher fee, all that MIAA can do is to require PIATCO to explain and justify the fees set by PIATCO. In the draft Concession Agreement, vehicular parking fee is subject to MIAA regulation and approval under the second paragraph of Section 6.03 thereof while porterage fee is covered by the first paragraph of the same provision. There is an obvious relaxation of the extent of control and regulation by MIAA with respect to the particular fees that may be charged by PIATCO. Moreover, with respect to the third category of fees that may be imposed and collected by PIATCO, i.e., new fees and charges that may be imposed by PIATCO which have not been previously imposed or collected at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Passenger Terminal I, under Section 6.03 of the draft Concession Agreement MIAA has reserved the right to regulate the same under the same conditions that MIAA may regulate fees under the first category, i.e., periodic adjustment of once every two years in accordance with a prescribed parametric formula and effective only upon written approval by MIAA. However, under the 1997 Concession Agreement, adjustment of fees under the third category is not subject to MIAA regulation. With respect to terminal fees that may be charged by PIATCO, 41 as shown earlier, this was included within the category of "Public Utility Revenues" under the 1997 Concession Agreement. This classification is significant because under the 1997 Concession Agreement, "Public Utility Revenues" are subject to an "Interim Adjustment" of fees upon the occurrence of certain extraordinary events specified in

64 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

the agreement.42 However, under the draft Concession Agreement, terminal fees are not included in the types of fees that may be subject to "Interim Adjustment." 43 Finally, under the 1997 Concession Agreement, "Public Utility Revenues," except terminal fees, are denominated in US Dollars44 while payments to the Government are in Philippine Pesos. In the draft Concession Agreement, no such stipulation was included. By stipulating that "Public Utility Revenues" will be paid to PIATCO in US Dollars while payments by PIATCO to the Government are in Philippine currency under the 1997 Concession Agreement, PIATCO is able to enjoy the benefits of depreciations of the Philippine Peso, while being effectively insulated from the detrimental effects of exchange rate fluctuations. When taken as a whole, the changes under the 1997 Concession Agreement with respect to reduction in the types of fees that are subject to MIAA regulation and the relaxation of such regulation with respect to other fees are significant amendments that substantially distinguish the draft Concession Agreement from the 1997 Concession Agreement. The 1997 Concession Agreement, in this respect, clearly gives PIATCO more favorable terms than what was available to other bidders at the time the contract was bidded out. It is not very difficult to see that the changes in the 1997 Concession Agreement translate to direct and concrete financial advantages for PIATCO which were not available at the time the contract was offered for bidding. It cannot be denied that under the 1997 Concession Agreement only "Public Utility Revenues" are subject to MIAA regulation. Adjustments of all other fees imposed and collected by PIATCO are entirely within its control. Moreover, with respect to terminal fees, under the 1997 Concession Agreement, the same is further subject to "Interim Adjustments" not previously stipulated in the draft Concession Agreement. Finally, the change in the currency stipulated for "Public Utility Revenues" under the 1997 Concession Agreement, except terminal fees, gives PIATCO an added benefit which was not available at the time of bidding. b. Assumption by the Government of the liabilities of PIATCO in the event of the latter's default thereof Under the draft Concession Agreement, default by PIATCO of any of its obligations to creditors who have provided, loaned or advanced funds for the NAIA IPT III project does not result in the assumption by the Government of these liabilities. In fact, nowhere in the said contract does default of PIATCO's loans figure in the agreement. Such default does not directly result in any concomitant right or obligation in favor of the Government. However, the 1997 Concession Agreement provides: Section 4.04 Assignment.

xxx

xxx

xxx

(b) In the event Concessionaire should default in the payment of an Attendant Liability, and the default has resulted in the acceleration of the payment due date of the Attendant Liability prior to its stated date of maturity, the Unpaid Creditors and Concessionaire shall immediately inform GRP in writing of such default. GRP shall, within one hundred eighty (180) Days from receipt of the joint written notice of the Unpaid Creditors and Concessionaire, either (i) take over the Development Facility and assume the Attendant Liabilities, or (ii) allow the Unpaid Creditors, if qualified, to be substituted as concessionaire and operator of the Development Facility in accordance with the terms and conditions hereof, or designate a qualified operator acceptable to GRP to operate the Development Facility, likewise under the terms and conditions of this Agreement; Provided that if at the end of the 180-day period GRP shall not have served the Unpaid Creditors and Concessionaire written notice of its choice, GRP shall be deemed to have elected to take over the Development Facility with the concomitant assumption of Attendant Liabilities. (c) If GRP should, by written notice, allow the Unpaid Creditors to be substituted as concessionaire, the latter shall form and organize a concession company qualified to take over the operation of the Development Facility. If the concession company should elect to designate an operator for the Development Facility, the concession company shall in good faith identify and designate a qualified operator acceptable to GRP within one hundred eighty (180) days from receipt of GRP's written notice. If the concession company, acting in good faith and with due diligence, is unable to designate a qualified operator within the aforesaid period, then GRP shall at the end of the 180-day period take over the Development Facility and assume Attendant Liabilities. The term "Attendant Liabilities" under the 1997 Concession Agreement is defined as: Attendant Liabilities refer to all amounts recorded and from time to time outstanding in the books of the Concessionaire as owing to Unpaid Creditors who have provided, loaned or advanced funds actually used for the Project, including all interests, penalties, associated fees, charges, surcharges, indemnities, reimbursements and other related expenses, and further including amounts owed by Concessionaire to its suppliers, contractors and sub-contractors. Under the above quoted portions of Section 4.04 in relation to the definition of "Attendant Liabilities," default by PIATCO of its loans used to finance the NAIA IPT III project triggers the occurrence of certain events that leads to the assumption by the Government of the liability for the loans. Only in one instance may the Government escape the assumption of PIATCO's liabilities, i.e., when the Government so elects and allows a qualified operator to take over as Concessionaire. However, this circumstance

65 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

is dependent on the existence and availability of a qualified operator who is willing to take over the rights and obligations of PIATCO under the contract, a circumstance that is not entirely within the control of the Government. Without going into the validity of this provision at this juncture, suffice it to state that Section 4.04 of the 1997 Concession Agreement may be considered a form of security for the loans PIATCO has obtained to finance the project, an option that was not made available in the draft Concession Agreement. Section 4.04 is an important amendment to the 1997 Concession Agreement because it grants PIATCO a financial advantage or benefit which was not previously made available during the bidding process. This financial advantage is a significant modification that translates to better terms and conditions for PIATCO. PIATCO, however, argues that the parties to the bidding procedure acknowledge that the draft Concession Agreement is subject to amendment because the Bid Documents permit financing or borrowing. They claim that it was the lenders who proposed the amendments to the draft Concession Agreement which resulted in the 1997 Concession Agreement. We agree that it is not inconsistent with the rationale and purpose of the BOT Law to allow the project proponent or the winning bidder to obtain financing for the project, especially in this case which involves the construction, operation and maintenance of the NAIA IPT III. Expectedly, compliance by the project proponent of its undertakings therein would involve a substantial amount of investment. It is therefore inevitable for the awardee of the contract to seek alternate sources of funds to support the project. Be that as it may, this Court maintains that amendments to the contract bidded upon should always conform to the general policy on public bidding if such procedure is to be faithful to its real nature and purpose. By its very nature and characteristic, competitive public bidding aims to protect the public interest by giving the public the best possible advantages through open competition.45 It has been held that the three principles in public bidding are (1) the offer to the public; (2) opportunity for competition; and (3) a basis for the exact comparison of bids. A regulation of the matter which excludes any of these factors destroys the distinctive character of the system and thwarts the purpose of its adoption.46 These are the basic parameters which every awardee of a contract bidded out must conform to, requirements of financing and borrowing notwithstanding. Thus, upon a concrete showing that, as in this case, the contract signed by the government and the contract-awardee is an entirely different contract from the contract bidded, courts should not hesitate to strike down said contract in its entirety for violation of public policy on public bidding. A strict adherence on the principles, rules and regulations on public bidding must be sustained if only to preserve the integrity and the faith of the general public on the procedure.

Public bidding is a standard practice for procuring government contracts for public service and for furnishing supplies and other materials. It aims to secure for the government the lowest possible price under the most favorable terms and conditions, to curtail favoritism in the award of government contracts and avoid suspicion of anomalies and it places all bidders in equal footing.47 Any government action which permits any substantial variance between the conditions under which the bids are invited and the contract executed after the award thereof is a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction which warrants proper judicial action. In view of the above discussion, the fact that the foregoing substantial amendments were made on the 1997 Concession Agreement renders the same null and void for being contrary to public policy. These amendments convert the 1997 Concession Agreement to an entirely different agreement from the contract bidded out or the draft Concession Agreement. It is not difficult to see that the amendments on (1) the types of fees or charges that are subject to MIAA regulation or control and the extent thereof and (2) the assumption by the Government, under certain conditions, of the liabilities of PIATCO directly translates concrete financial advantages to PIATCO that were previously not available during the bidding process. These amendments cannot be taken as merely supplements to or implementing provisions of those already existing in the draft Concession Agreement. The amendments discussed above present new terms and conditions which provide financial benefit to PIATCO which may have altered the technical and financial parameters of other bidders had they known that such terms were available. III Direct Government Guarantee Article IV, Section 4.04(b) and (c), in relation to Article 1.06, of the 1997 Concession Agreement provides: Section 4.04 Assignment xxx xxx xxx

(b) In the event Concessionaire should default in the payment of an Attendant Liability, and the default resulted in the acceleration of the payment due date of the Attendant Liability prior to its stated date of maturity, the Unpaid Creditors and Concessionaire shall immediately inform GRP in writing of such default. GRP shall within one hundred eighty (180) days from receipt of the joint written notice of the Unpaid Creditors and Concessionaire, either (i) take over the Development Facility and assume the Attendant Liabilities, or (ii) allow the Unpaid Creditors, if qualified to be substituted as

66 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

concessionaire and operator of the Development facility in accordance with the terms and conditions hereof, or designate a qualified operator acceptable to GRP to operate the Development Facility, likewise under the terms and conditions of this Agreement; Provided, that if at the end of the 180-day period GRP shall not have served the Unpaid Creditors and Concessionaire written notice of its choice, GRP shall be deemed to have elected to take over the Development Facility with the concomitant assumption of Attendant Liabilities. (c) If GRP, by written notice, allow the Unpaid Creditors to be substituted as concessionaire, the latter shall form and organize a concession company qualified to takeover the operation of the Development Facility. If the concession company should elect to designate an operator for the Development Facility, the concession company shall in good faith identify and designate a qualified operator acceptable to GRP within one hundred eighty (180) days from receipt of GRP's written notice. If the concession company, acting in good faith and with due diligence, is unable to designate a qualified operator within the aforesaid period, then GRP shall at the end of the 180-day period take over the Development Facility and assume Attendant Liabilities. . Section 1.06. Attendant Liabilities Attendant Liabilities refer to all amounts recorded and from time to time outstanding in the books of the Concessionaire as owing to Unpaid Creditors who have provided, loaned or advanced funds actually used for the Project, including all interests, penalties, associated fees, charges, surcharges, indemnities, reimbursements and other related expenses, and further including amounts owed by Concessionaire to its suppliers, contractors and sub-contractors.48 It is clear from the above-quoted provisions that Government, in the event that PIATCO defaults in its loan obligations, is obligated to pay "all amounts recorded and from time to time outstanding from the books" of PIATCO which the latter owes to its creditors.49 These amounts include "all interests, penalties, associated fees, charges, surcharges, indemnities, reimbursements and other related expenses."50 This obligation of the Government to pay PIATCO's creditors upon PIATCO's default would arise if the Government opts to take over NAIA IPT III. It should be noted, however, that even if the Government chooses the second option, which is to allow PIATCO's unpaid creditors operate NAIA IPT III, the Government is still at a risk of being liable to PIATCO's creditors should the latter be unable to designate a qualified operator within the prescribed period.51 In effect, whatever option the Government chooses to take in the event of PIATCO's failure to fulfill its loan obligations, the Government is still at a risk of assuming PIATCO's outstanding loans. This is due to the fact that the Government

would only be free from assuming PIATCO's debts if the unpaid creditors would be able to designate a qualified operator within the period provided for in the contract. Thus, the Government's assumption of liability is virtually out of its control. The Government under the circumstances provided for in the 1997 Concession Agreement is at the mercy of the existence, availability and willingness of a qualified operator. The above contractual provisions constitute a direct government guarantee which is prohibited by law. One of the main impetus for the enactment of the BOT Law is the lack of government funds to construct the infrastructure and development projects necessary for economic growth and development. This is why private sector resources are being tapped in order to finance these projects. The BOT law allows the private sector to participate, and is in fact encouraged to do so by way of incentives, such as minimizing the unstable flow of returns,52 provided that the government would not have to unnecessarily expend scarcely available funds for the project itself. As such, direct guarantee, subsidy and equity by the government in these projects are strictly prohibited.53 This is but logical for if the government would in the end still be at a risk of paying the debts incurred by the private entity in the BOT projects, then the purpose of the law is subverted. Section 2(n) of the BOT Law defines direct guarantee as follows: (n) Direct government guarantee An agreement whereby the government or any of its agencies or local government units assume responsibility for the repayment of debt directly incurred by the project proponent in implementing the project in case of a loan default. Clearly by providing that the Government "assumes" the attendant liabilities, which consists of PIATCO's unpaid debts, the 1997 Concession Agreement provided for a direct government guarantee for the debts incurred by PIATCO in the implementation of the NAIA IPT III project. It is of no moment that the relevant sections are subsumed under the title of "assignment". The provisions providing for direct government guarantee which is prohibited by law is clear from the terms thereof. The fact that the ARCA superseded the 1997 Concession Agreement did not cure this fatal defect. Article IV, Section 4.04(c), in relation to Article I, Section 1.06, of the ARCA provides: Section 4.04 Security xxx xxx xxx

(c) GRP agrees with Concessionaire (PIATCO) that it shall negotiate in good faith and enter into direct agreement with the Senior Lenders, or with an agent of such Senior Lenders (which agreement shall be subject to the approval of the Bangko Sentral ng

67 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

Pilipinas), in such form as may be reasonably acceptable to both GRP and Senior Lenders, with regard, inter alia, to the following parameters: xxx xxx xxx

fees, charges and expenses of any agents or trustees of such persons or entities), whether payable at maturity, by acceleration or otherwise, and further including amounts owed by Concessionaire [PIATCO] to its professional consultants and advisers, suppliers, contractors and sub-contractors.54 It is clear from the foregoing contractual provisions that in the event that PIATCO fails to fulfill its loan obligations to its Senior Lenders, the Government is obligated to directly negotiate and enter into an agreement relating to NAIA IPT III with the Senior Lenders, should the latter fail to appoint a qualified nominee or transferee who will take the place of PIATCO. If the Senior Lenders and the Government are unable to enter into an agreement after the prescribed period, the Government must then pay PIATCO, upon transfer of NAIA IPT III to the Government, termination payment equal to the appraised value of the project or the value of the attendant liabilities whichever is greater. Attendant liabilities as defined in the ARCA includes all amounts owed or thereafter may be owed by PIATCO not only to the Senior Lenders with whom PIATCO has defaulted in its loan obligations but to all other persons who may have loaned, advanced funds or provided any other type of financial facilities to PIATCO for NAIA IPT III. The amount of PIATCO's debt that the Government would have to pay as a result of PIATCO's default in its loan obligations -- in case no qualified nominee or transferee is appointed by the Senior Lenders and no other agreement relating to NAIA IPT III has been reached between the Government and the Senior Lenders -- includes, but is not limited to, "all principal, interest, associated fees, charges, reimbursements, and other related expenses . . . whether payable at maturity, by acceleration or otherwise."55 It is clear from the foregoing that the ARCA provides for a direct guarantee by the government to pay PIATCO's loans not only to its Senior Lenders but all other entities who provided PIATCO funds or services upon PIATCO's default in its loan obligation with its Senior Lenders. The fact that the Government's obligation to pay PIATCO's lenders for the latter's obligation would only arise after the Senior Lenders fail to appoint a qualified nominee or transferee does not detract from the fact that, should the conditions as stated in the contract occur, the ARCA still obligates the Government to pay any and all amounts owed by PIATCO to its lenders in connection with NAIA IPT III. Worse, the conditions that would make the Government liable for PIATCO's debts is triggered by PIATCO's own default of its loan obligations to its Senior Lenders to which loan contracts the Government was never a party to. The Government was not even given an option as to what course of action it should take in case PIATCO defaulted in the payment of its senior loans. The Government, upon PIATCO's default, would be merely notified by the Senior Lenders of the same and it is the Senior Lenders who are authorized to appoint a qualified nominee or transferee. Should the Senior Lenders fail to make such an appointment, the Government is then automatically obligated to

(iv) If the Concessionaire [PIATCO] is in default under a payment obligation owed to the Senior Lenders, and as a result thereof the Senior Lenders have become entitled to accelerate the Senior Loans, the Senior Lenders shall have the right to notify GRP of the same, and without prejudice to any other rights of the Senior Lenders or any Senior Lenders' agent may have (including without limitation under security interests granted in favor of the Senior Lenders), to either in good faith identify and designate a nominee which is qualified under sub-clause (viii)(y) below to operate the Development Facility [NAIA Terminal 3] or transfer the Concessionaire's [PIATCO] rights and obligations under this Agreement to a transferee which is qualified under sub-clause (viii) below; xxx xxx xxx

(vi) if the Senior Lenders, acting in good faith and using reasonable efforts, are unable to designate a nominee or effect a transfer in terms and conditions satisfactory to the Senior Lenders within one hundred eighty (180) days after giving GRP notice as referred to respectively in (iv) or (v) above, then GRP and the Senior Lenders shall endeavor in good faith to enter into any other arrangement relating to the Development Facility [NAIA Terminal 3] (other than a turnover of the Development Facility [NAIA Terminal 3] to GRP) within the following one hundred eighty (180) days. If no agreement relating to the Development Facility [NAIA Terminal 3] is arrived at by GRP and the Senior Lenders within the said 180-day period, then at the end thereof the Development Facility [NAIA Terminal 3] shall be transferred by the Concessionaire [PIATCO] to GRP or its designee and GRP shall make a termination payment to Concessionaire [PIATCO] equal to the Appraised Value (as hereinafter defined) of the Development Facility [NAIA Terminal 3] or the sum of the Attendant Liabilities, if greater. Notwithstanding Section 8.01(c) hereof, this Agreement shall be deemed terminated upon the transfer of the Development Facility [NAIA Terminal 3] to GRP pursuant hereto; xxx xxx xxx

Section 1.06. Attendant Liabilities Attendant Liabilities refer to all amounts in each case supported by verifiable evidence from time to time owed or which may become owing by Concessionaire [PIATCO] to Senior Lenders or any other persons or entities who have provided, loaned, or advanced funds or provided financial facilities to Concessionaire [PIATCO] for the Project [NAIA Terminal 3], including, without limitation, all principal, interest, associated fees, charges, reimbursements, and other related expenses (including the

68 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

"directly deal and negotiate" with the Senior Lenders regarding NAIA IPT III. The only way the Government would not be liable for PIATCO's debt is for a qualified nominee or transferee to be appointed in place of PIATCO to continue the construction, operation and maintenance of NAIA IPT III. This "pre-condition", however, will not take the contract out of the ambit of a direct guarantee by the government as the existence, availability and willingness of a qualified nominee or transferee is totally out of the government's control. As such the Government is virtually at the mercy of PIATCO (that it would not default on its loan obligations to its Senior Lenders), the Senior Lenders (that they would appoint a qualified nominee or transferee or agree to some other arrangement with the Government) and the existence of a qualified nominee or transferee who is able and willing to take the place of PIATCO in NAIA IPT III. The proscription against government guarantee in any form is one of the policy considerations behind the BOT Law. Clearly, in the present case, the ARCA obligates the Government to pay for all loans, advances and obligations arising out of financial facilities extended to PIATCO for the implementation of the NAIA IPT III project should PIATCO default in its loan obligations to its Senior Lenders and the latter fails to appoint a qualified nominee or transferee. This in effect would make the Government liable for PIATCO's loans should the conditions as set forth in the ARCA arise. This is a form of direct government guarantee. The BOT Law and its implementing rules provide that in order for an unsolicited proposal for a BOT project may be accepted, the following conditions must first be met: (1) the project involves a new concept in technology and/or is not part of the list of priority projects, (2) no direct government guarantee, subsidy or equity is required, and (3) the government agency or local government unit has invited by publication other interested parties to a public bidding and conducted the same. 56 The failure to meet any of the above conditions will result in the denial of the proposal. It is further provided that the presence of direct government guarantee, subsidy or equity will "necessarily disqualify a proposal from being treated and accepted as an unsolicited proposal."57 The BOT Law clearly and strictly prohibits direct government guarantee, subsidy and equity in unsolicited proposals that the mere inclusion of a provision to that effect is fatal and is sufficient to deny the proposal. It stands to reason therefore that if a proposal can be denied by reason of the existence of direct government guarantee, then its inclusion in the contract executed after the said proposal has been accepted is likewise sufficient to invalidate the contract itself. A prohibited provision, the inclusion of which would result in the denial of a proposal cannot, and should not, be allowed to later on be inserted in the contract resulting from the said proposal. The basic rules of justice and fair play alone militate against such an occurrence and must not, therefore,

be countenanced particularly in this instance where the government is exposed to the risk of shouldering hundreds of million of dollars in debt. This Court has long and consistently adhered to the legal maxim that those that cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.58 To declare the PIATCO contracts valid despite the clear statutory prohibition against a direct government guarantee would not only make a mockery of what the BOT Law seeks to prevent -- which is to expose the government to the risk of incurring a monetary obligation resulting from a contract of loan between the project proponent and its lenders and to which the Government is not a party to -- but would also render the BOT Law useless for what it seeks to achieve - to make use of the resources of the private sector in the "financing, operation and maintenance of infrastructure and development projects" 59 which are necessary for national growth and development but which the government, unfortunately, could ill-afford to finance at this point in time. IV Temporary takeover of business affected with public interest Article XII, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution provides: Section 17. In times of national emergency, when the public interest so requires, the State may, during the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest. The above provision pertains to the right of the State in times of national emergency, and in the exercise of its police power, to temporarily take over the operation of any business affected with public interest. In the 1986 Constitutional Commission, the term "national emergency" was defined to include threat from external aggression, calamities or national disasters, but not strikes "unless it is of such proportion that would paralyze government service."60 The duration of the emergency itself is the determining factor as to how long the temporary takeover by the government would last.61 The temporary takeover by the government extends only to the operation of the business and not to the ownership thereof. As such the government is not required to compensate the private entity-owner of the said business as there is no transfer of ownership, whether permanent or temporary. The private entity-owner affected by the temporary takeover cannot, likewise, claim just compensation for the use of the said business and its properties as the temporary takeover by the government is in exercise of its police power and not of its power of eminent domain. Article V, Section 5.10 (c) of the 1997 Concession Agreement provides: Section 5.10 Temporary Take-over of operations by GRP. .

69 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

(c) In the event the development Facility or any part thereof and/or the operations of Concessionaire or any part thereof, become the subject matter of or be included in any notice, notification, or declaration concerning or relating to acquisition, seizure or appropriation by GRP in times of war or national emergency, GRP shall, by written notice to Concessionaire, immediately take over the operations of the Terminal and/or the Terminal Complex. During such take over by GRP, the Concession Period shall be suspended; provided, that upon termination of war, hostilities or national emergency, the operations shall be returned to Concessionaire, at which time, the Concession period shall commence to run again. Concessionaire shall be entitled to reasonable compensation for the duration of the temporary take over by GRP, which compensation shall take into account the reasonable cost for the use of the Terminal and/or Terminal Complex, (which is in the amount at least equal to the debt service requirements of Concessionaire, if the temporary take over should occur at the time when Concessionaire is still servicing debts owed to project lenders), any loss or damage to the Development Facility, and other consequential damages. If the parties cannot agree on the reasonable compensation of Concessionaire, or on the liability of GRP as aforesaid, the matter shall be resolved in accordance with Section 10.01 [Arbitration]. Any amount determined to be payable by GRP to Concessionaire shall be offset from the amount next payable by Concessionaire to GRP.62 PIATCO cannot, by mere contractual stipulation, contravene the Constitutional provision on temporary government takeover and obligate the government to pay "reasonable cost for the use of the Terminal and/or Terminal Complex." 63 Article XII, section 17 of the 1987 Constitution envisions a situation wherein the exigencies of the times necessitate the government to "temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest." It is the welfare and interest of the public which is the paramount consideration in determining whether or not to temporarily take over a particular business. Clearly, the State in effecting the temporary takeover is exercising its police power. Police power is the "most essential, insistent, and illimitable of powers."64 Its exercise therefore must not be unreasonably hampered nor its exercise be a source of obligation by the government in the absence of damage due to arbitrariness of its exercise.65 Thus, requiring the government to pay reasonable compensation for the reasonable use of the property pursuant to the operation of the business contravenes the Constitution. V Regulation of Monopolies A monopoly is "a privilege or peculiar advantage vested in one or more persons or companies, consisting in the exclusive right (or power) to carry on a particular business or trade, manufacture a particular article, or control the sale of a particular commodity."66 The 1987 Constitution strictly regulates monopolies, whether private or

public, and even provides for their prohibition if public interest so requires. Article XII, Section 19 of the 1987 Constitution states: Sec. 19. The state shall regulate or prohibit monopolies when the public interest so requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition shall be allowed. Clearly, monopolies are not per se prohibited by the Constitution but may be permitted to exist to aid the government in carrying on an enterprise or to aid in the performance of various services and functions in the interest of the public.67 Nonetheless, a determination must first be made as to whether public interest requires a monopoly. As monopolies are subject to abuses that can inflict severe prejudice to the public, they are subject to a higher level of State regulation than an ordinary business undertaking. In the cases at bar, PIATCO, under the 1997 Concession Agreement and the ARCA, is granted the "exclusive right to operate a commercial international passenger terminal within the Island of Luzon" at the NAIA IPT III. 68 This is with the exception of already existing international airports in Luzon such as those located in the Subic Bay Freeport Special Economic Zone ("SBFSEZ"), Clark Special Economic Zone ("CSEZ") and in Laoag City.69 As such, upon commencement of PIATCO's operation of NAIA IPT III, Terminals 1 and 2 of NAIA would cease to function as international passenger terminals. This, however, does not prevent MIAA to use Terminals 1 and 2 as domestic passenger terminals or in any other manner as it may deem appropriate except those activities that would compete with NAIA IPT III in the latter's operation as an international passenger terminal.70 The right granted to PIATCO to exclusively operate NAIA IPT III would be for a period of twenty-five (25) years from the In-Service Date71 and renewable for another twenty-five (25) years at the option of the government.72 Both the 1997 Concession Agreement and the ARCA further provide that, in view of the exclusive right granted to PIATCO, the concession contracts of the service providers currently servicing Terminals 1 and 2 would no longer be renewed and those concession contracts whose expiration are subsequent to the In-Service Date would cease to be effective on the said date.73 The operation of an international passenger airport terminal is no doubt an undertaking imbued with public interest. In entering into a BuildOperate-and-Transfer contract for the construction, operation and maintenance of NAIA IPT III, the government has determined that public interest would be served better if private sector resources were used in its construction and an exclusive right to operate be granted to the private entity undertaking the said project, in this case PIATCO. Nonetheless, the privilege given to PIATCO is subject to reasonable regulation and supervision by the Government through the MIAA, which is the government agency authorized to operate the NAIA complex, as well as DOTC, the department to which MIAA is attached.74

70 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

This is in accord with the Constitutional mandate that a monopoly which is not prohibited must be regulated.75 While it is the declared policy of the BOT Law to encourage private sector participation by "providing a climate of minimum government regulations,"76 the same does not mean that Government must completely surrender its sovereign power to protect public interest in the operation of a public utility as a monopoly. The operation of said public utility can not be done in an arbitrary manner to the detriment of the public which it seeks to serve. The right granted to the public utility may be exclusive but the exercise of the right cannot run riot. Thus, while PIATCO may be authorized to exclusively operate NAIA IPT III as an international passenger terminal, the Government, through the MIAA, has the right and the duty to ensure that it is done in accord with public interest. PIATCO's right to operate NAIA IPT III cannot also violate the rights of third parties. Section 3.01(e) of the 1997 Concession Agreement and the ARCA provide: 3.01 Concession Period xxx xxx xxx

but also by third parties. PIATCO cannot, by law and certainly not by contract, render a valid and binding contract nugatory. PIATCO, by the mere expedient of claiming an exclusive right to operate, cannot require the Government to break its contractual obligations to the service providers. In contrast to the arrastre and stevedoring service providers in the case of Anglo-Fil Trading Corporation v. Lazaro78 whose contracts consist of temporary hold-over permits, the affected service providers in the cases at bar, have a valid and binding contract with the Government, through MIAA, whose period of effectivity, as well as the other terms and conditions thereof, cannot be violated. In fine, the efficient functioning of NAIA IPT III is imbued with public interest. The provisions of the 1997 Concession Agreement and the ARCA did not strip government, thru the MIAA, of its right to supervise the operation of the whole NAIA complex, including NAIA IPT III. As the primary government agency tasked with the job, 79 it is MIAA's responsibility to ensure that whoever by contract is given the right to operate NAIA IPT III will do so within the bounds of the law and with due regard to the rights of third parties and above all, the interest of the public. VI CONCLUSION In sum, this Court rules that in view of the absence of the requisite financial capacity of the Paircargo Consortium, predecessor of respondent PIATCO, the award by the PBAC of the contract for the construction, operation and maintenance of the NAIA IPT III is null and void. Further, considering that the 1997 Concession Agreement contains material and substantial amendments, which amendments had the effect of converting the 1997 Concession Agreement into an entirely different agreement from the contract bidded upon, the 1997 Concession Agreement is similarly null and void for being contrary to public policy. The provisions under Sections 4.04(b) and (c) in relation to Section 1.06 of the 1997 Concession Agreement and Section 4.04(c) in relation to Section 1.06 of the ARCA, which constitute a direct government guarantee expressly prohibited by, among others, the BOT Law and its Implementing Rules and Regulations are also null and void. The Supplements, being accessory contracts to the ARCA, are likewise null and void. WHEREFORE, the 1997 Concession Agreement, the Amended and Restated Concession Agreement and the Supplements thereto are set aside for being null and void. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Austria-Martinez, Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur. Vitug, J., see separate (dissenting) opinion. Panganiban, J., please see separate opinion.

(e) GRP confirms that certain concession agreements relative to certain services and operations currently being undertaken at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport passenger Terminal I have a validity period extending beyond the In-Service Date. GRP through DOTC/MIAA, confirms that these services and operations shall not be carried over to the Terminal and the Concessionaire is under no legal obligation to permit such carry-over except through a separate agreement duly entered into with Concessionaire. In the event Concessionaire becomes involved in any litigation initiated by any such concessionaire or operator, GRP undertakes and hereby holds Concessionaire free and harmless on full indemnity basis from and against any loss and/or any liability resulting from any such litigation, including the cost of litigation and the reasonable fees paid or payable to Concessionaire's counsel of choice, all such amounts shall be fully deductible by way of an offset from any amount which the Concessionaire is bound to pay GRP under this Agreement. During the oral arguments on December 10, 2002, the counsel for the petitioners-inintervention for G.R. No. 155001 stated that there are two service providers whose contracts are still existing and whose validity extends beyond the In-Service Date. One contract remains valid until 2008 and the other until 2010.77 We hold that while the service providers presently operating at NAIA Terminal 1 do not have an absolute right for the renewal or the extension of their respective contracts, those contracts whose duration extends beyond NAIA IPT III's In-Service-Date should not be unduly prejudiced. These contracts must be respected not just by the parties thereto

71 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

Quisumbing, J., no jurisdiction, please see separate opinion of J. Vitug in which he concurs. Carpio, J., no part. Callejo, Sr., J., also concur in the separate opinion of J. Panganiban. Azcuna, J., joins the separate opinion of J. Vitug.

72 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 154599 January 21, 2004

By virtue of the above-cited provision, the Liga adopted and ratified its own Election Code.5 Section 1.2, Article I of the Liga Election Code states: 1.2 Liga ng mga Barangay Provincial, Metropolitan, HUC/ICC Chapters. There shall be nationwide synchronized elections for the provincial, metropolitan, and HUC/ICC chapters to be held on the third Monday of the month immediately after the month when the synchronized elections in paragraph 1.1 above was held. The incumbent Liga chapter president concerned duly assisted by the proper government agency, office or department, e.g. Provincial/City/NCR/Regional Director, shall convene all the duly elected Component City/Municipal Chapter Presidents and all the current elected Punong Barangays (for HUC/ICC) of the respective chapters in any public place within its area of jurisdiction for the purpose of reorganizing and electing the officers and directors of the provincial, metropolitan or HUC/ICC Liga chapters. Said president duly assisted by the government officer aforementioned, shall notify, in writing, all the above concerned at least fifteen (15) days before the scheduled election meeting on the exact date, time, place and requirements of the said meeting. The Liga thereafter came out with its Calendar of Activities and Guidelines in the Implementation of the Liga Election Code of 2002,6 setting on 21 October 2002 the synchronized elections for highly urbanized city chapters, such as the Liga Chapter of Manila, together with independent component city, provincial, and metropolitan chapters.lawphi1.net On 28 June 2002, respondent City Council of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 8039, Series of 2002, providing, among other things, for the election of representatives of the District Chapters in the City Chapter of Manila and setting the elections for both chapters thirty days after the barangay elections. Section 3 (A) and (B) of the assailed ordinance read: SEC. 3. Representation Chapters. Every Barangay shall be represented in the said Liga Chapters by the Punong Barangayor, in his absence or incapacity, by the kagawad duly elected for the purpose among its members. A. District Chapter All elected Barangay Chairman in each District shall elect from among themselves the President, Vice-President and five (5) members of the Board. B. City Chapter The District Chapter representatives shall automatically become members of the Board and they shall elect from among themselves a President, Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer, Auditor and create other positions as it may deem necessary for the management of the chapter.

THE LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY NATIONAL, petitioner, vs. THE CITY MAYOR OF MANILA, HON. JOSE ATIENZA, JR., and THE CITY COUNCIL OF MANILA, respondents. DECISION DAVIDE, JR., C.J.: This petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeks the nullification of Manila City Ordinance No. 8039, Series of 2002,1 and respondent City Mayors Executive Order No. 011, Series of 2002,2 dated 15 August 2002 , for being patently contrary to law. The antecedents are as follows: Petitioner Liga ng mga Barangay National (Liga for brevity) is the national organization of all the barangays in the Philippines, which pursuant to Section 492 of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as The Local Government Code of 1991, constitutes the duly elected presidents of highly-urbanized cities, provincial chapters, the metropolitan Manila Chapter, and metropolitan political subdivision chapters. Section 493 of that law provides that "[t]he liga at the municipal, city, provincial, metropolitan political subdivision, and national levels directly elect a president, a vicepresident, and five (5) members of the board of directors." All other matters not provided for in the law affecting the internal organization of the leagues of local government units shall be governed by their respective constitution and by-laws, which must always conform to the provisions of the Constitution and existing laws. 3 On 16 March 2000, the Liga adopted and ratified its own Constitution and By-laws to govern its internal organization.4 Section 1, third paragraph, Article XI of said Constitution and By-Laws states: All other election matters not covered in this Article shall be governed by the "Liga Election Code" or such other rules as may be promulgated by the National Liga Executive Board in conformity with the provisions of existing laws.

73 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

The assailed ordinance was later transmitted to respondent City Mayor Jose L. Atienza, Jr., for his signature and approval. On 16 July 2002, upon being informed that the ordinance had been forwarded to the Office of the City Mayor, still unnumbered and yet to be officially released, the Liga sent respondent Mayor of Manila a letter requesting him that said ordinance be vetoed considering that it encroached upon, or even assumed, the functions of the Liga through legislation, a function which was clearly beyond the ambit of the powers of the City Council.7 Respondent Mayor, however, signed and approved the assailed city ordinance and issued on 15 August 2002 Executive Order No. 011, Series of 2002, to implement the ordinance. Hence, on 27 August 2002, the Liga filed the instant petition raising the following issues: I WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT CITY COUNCIL OF MANILA COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, WHEN IT ENACTED CITY ORDINANCE NO. 8039 S. 2002 PURPOSELY TO GOVERN THE ELECTIONS OF THE MANILA CHAPTER OF THE LIGA NG MGA BARANGAYS AND WHICH PROVIDES A DIFFERENT MANNER OF ELECTING ITS OFFICERS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT SAID CHAPTERS ELECTIONS, AND THE ELECTIONS OF ALL OTHER CHAPTERS OF THE LIGA NG MGA BARANGAYS FOR THAT MATTER, ARE BY LAW MANDATED TO BE GOVERNED BY THE LIGA CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS AND THE LIGA ELECTION CODE. II WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT CITY MAYOR OF MANILA COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN HE ISSUED EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 011 TO IMPLEMENT THE QUESTIONED CITY ORDINANCE NO. 8039 S. 2002. In support of its petition, the Liga argues that City Ordinance No. 8039, Series of 2002, and Executive Order No. 011, Series of 2002, contradict the Liga Election Code and are therefore invalid. There exists neither rhyme nor reason, not to mention the absence of legal basis, for the Manila City Council to encroach upon, or even assume, the functions of the Liga by prescribing, through legislation, the manner of conducting the Liga elections other than what has been provided for by the Liga Constitution and By-laws and the Liga Election Code. Accordingly, the subject ordinance is an ultra vires act of the respondents and, as such, should be declared null and void.

As for its prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order, the petitioner cites as reason therefor the fact that under Section 5 of the assailed city ordinance, the Manila District Chapter elections would be held thirty days after the regular barangay elections. Hence, it argued that the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction would be imperative to prevent the implementation of the ordinance and executive order. On 12 September 2002, Barangay Chairman Arnel Pea, in his capacity as a member of the Liga ng mga Barangay in the City Chapter of Manila, filed a Complaint in Intervention with Urgent Motion for the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction.8 He supports the position of the Liga and prays for the declaration of the questioned ordinance and executive order, as well as the elections of the Liga ng mga Barangay pursuant thereto, to be null and void. The assailed ordinance prescribing for an "indirect manner of election" amended, in effect, the provisions of the Local Government Code of 1991, which provides for the election of the Liga officers at large. It also violated and curtailed the rights of the petitioner and intervenor, as well as the other 896 Barangay Chairmen in the City of Manila, to vote and be voted upon in a direct election. On 25 October 2002, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Manifestation in lieu of Comment.9 It supports the petition of the Liga, arguing that the assailed city ordinance and executive order are clearly inconsistent with the express public policy enunciated in R.A. No. 7160. Local political subdivisions are able to legislate only by virtue of a valid delegation of legislative power from the national legislature. They are mere agents vested with what is called the power of subordinate legislation. Thus, the enactments in question, which are local in origin, cannot prevail against the decree, which has the force and effect of law. On the issue of non-observance by the petitioners of the hierarchy-of-courts rule, the OSG posits that technical rules of procedure should be relaxed in the instant petition. While Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended, grants original jurisdiction over cases of this nature to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), the exigency of the present petition, however, calls for the relaxation of this rule. Section 496 (should be Section 491) of the Local Government Code of 1991 primarily intended that the Liga ng mga Barangay determine the representation of the Liga in the sanggunians for the immediate ventilation, articulation, and crystallization of issues affecting barangay government administration. Thus, the immediate resolution of this petition is a must. On the other hand, the respondents defend the validity of the assailed ordinance and executive order and pray for the dismissal of the present petition on the following grounds: (1) certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is unavailing; (2) the petition

74 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

should not be entertained by this Court in view of the pendency before the Regional Trial Court of Manila of two actions or petitions questioning the subject ordinance and executive order; (3) the petitioner is guilty of forum shopping; and (4) the act sought to be enjoined is fait accompli. The respondents maintain that certiorari is an extraordinary remedy available to one aggrieved by the decision of a tribunal, officer, or board exercising judicial or quasijudicial functions. The City Council and City Mayor of Manila are not the "board" and "officer" contemplated in Rule 65 of the Rules of Court because both do not exercise judicial functions. The enactment of the subject ordinance and issuance of the questioned executive order are legislative and executive functions, respectively, and thus, do not fall within the ambit of "judicial functions." They are both within the prerogatives, powers, and authority of the City Council and City Mayor of Manila, respectively. Furthermore, the petition failed to show with certainty that the respondents acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The respondents also asseverate that the petitioner cannot claim that it has no other recourse in addressing its grievance other than this petition for certiorari. As a matter of fact, there are two cases pending before Branches 33 and 51 of the RTC of Manila (one is for mandamus; the other, for declaratory relief) and three in the Court of Appeals (one is for prohibition; the two other cases, for quo warranto), which are all akin to the present petition in the sense that the relief being sought therein is the declaration of the invalidity of the subject ordinance. Clearly, the petitioner may ask the RTC or the Court of Appeals the relief being prayed for before this Court. Moreover, the petitioner failed to prove discernible compelling reasons attending the present petition that would warrant cognizance of the present petition by this Court. Besides, according to the respondents, the petitioner has transgressed the proscription against forum-shopping in filing the instant suit. Although the parties in the other pending cases and in this petition are different individuals or entities, they represent the same interest. With regard to petitioner's prayer for temporary restraining order and/ or preliminary injunction in its petition, the respondents maintain that the same had become moot and academic in view of the elections of officers of the City Liga ng mga Barangay on 15 September 2002 and their subsequent assumption to their respective offices. 10 Since the acts to be enjoined are now fait accompli, this petition for certiorari with an application for provisional remedies must necessarily fail. Thus, where the records show that during the pendency of the case certain events or circumstances had taken place that render the case moot and academic, the petition for certiorari must be dismissed.

After due deliberation on the pleadings filed, we resolve to dismiss this petition for certiorari. First, the respondents neither acted in any judicial or quasi-judicial capacity nor arrogated unto themselves any judicial or quasi-judicial prerogatives. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is a special civil action that may be invoked only against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasijudicial functions. Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides: SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari. When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. Elsewise stated, for a writ of certiorari to issue, the following requisites must concur: (1) it must be directed against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasijudicial functions; (2) the tribunal, board, or officer must have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A respondent is said to be exercising judicial function where he has the power to determine what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are, and then undertakes to determine these questions and adjudicate upon the rights of the parties.11 Quasi-judicial function, on the other hand, is "a term which applies to the actions, discretion, etc., of public administrative officers or bodies required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them as a basis for their official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature." 12 Before a tribunal, board, or officer may exercise judicial or quasi-judicial acts, it is necessary that there be a law that gives rise to some specific rights of persons or property under which adverse claims to such rights are made, and the controversy ensuing therefrom is brought before a tribunal, board, or officer clothed with power and authority to determine the law and adjudicate the respective rights of the contending parties.13

75 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

The respondents do not fall within the ambit of tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. As correctly pointed out by the respondents, the enactment by the City Council of Manila of the assailed ordinance and the issuance by respondent Mayor of the questioned executive order were done in the exercise of legislative and executive functions, respectively, and not of judicial or quasi-judicial functions. On this score alone, certiorari will not lie. Second, although the instant petition is styled as a petition for certiorari, in essence, it seeks the declaration by this Court of the unconstitutionality or illegality of the questioned ordinance and executive order. It, thus, partakes of the nature of a petition for declaratory relief over which this Court has only appellate, not original, jurisdiction. 14 Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution provides: Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: (1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus. (2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in: (a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question. (Italics supplied). As such, this petition must necessary fail, as this Court does not have original jurisdiction over a petition for declaratory relief even if only questions of law are involved. 15 Third, even granting arguendo that the present petition is ripe for the extraordinary writ of certiorari, there is here a clear disregard of the hierarchy of courts. No special and important reason or exceptional and compelling circumstance has been adduced by the petitioner or the intervenor why direct recourse to this Court should be allowed. We have held that this Courts original jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari (as well as of prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction) is not exclusive, but is concurrent with the Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals in certain cases. As aptly stated in People v. Cuaresma:16 This concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however, to be taken as according to parties seeking any of the writs an absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which application therefor0 will be directed. There is after all a hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and also serves as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs. A

becoming regard of that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level ("inferior") courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is [an] established policy. It is a policy necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the Courts time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further overcrowding of the Courts docket. As we have said in Santiago v. Vasquez,17 the propensity of litigants and lawyers to disregard the hierarchy of courts in our judicial system by seeking relief directly from this Court must be put to a halt for two reasons: (1) it would be an imposition upon the precious time of this Court; and (2) it would cause an inevitable and resultant delay, intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of cases, which in some instances had to be remanded or referred to the lower court as the proper forum under the rules of procedure, or as better equipped to resolve the issues because this Court is not a trier of facts. Thus, we shall reaffirm the judicial policy that this Court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts, and exceptional and compelling circumstances justify the availment of the extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari, calling for the exercise of its primary jurisdiction. 18 Petitioners reliance on Pimentel v. Aguirre19 is misplaced because the non-observance of the hierarchy-of-courts rule was not an issue therein. Besides, what was sought to be nullified in the petition for certiorari and prohibition therein was an act of the President of the Philippines, which would have greatly affected all local government units. We reiterated therein that when an act of the legislative department is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, settling the controversy becomes the duty of this Court. The same is true when what is seriously alleged to be unconstitutional is an act of the President, who in our constitutional scheme is coequal with Congress. We hesitate to rule that the petitioner and the intervenor are guilty of forum-shopping. Forum-shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or when a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. For litis pendentia to exist, the following requisites must be present: (1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as are representing the same interests in both actions; (2) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts; and (3) identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases, such that any

76 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case.20 In the instant petition, and as admitted by the respondents, the parties in this case and in the alleged other pending cases are different individuals or entities; thus, forumshopping cannot be said to exist. Moreover, even assuming that those five petitions are indeed pending before the RTC of Manila and the Court of Appeals, we can only guess the causes of action and issues raised before those courts, considering that the respondents failed to furnish this Court with copies of the said petitions. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.

77 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 170122 October 12, 2009

29, 2004 a petition for the forfeiture of those properties. This petition, docketed as Civil Case No. 0193, was eventually raffled to the Fourth Division of the anti-graft court. Civil Case No. 0193 was followed by the filing on July 5, 2005 of another forfeiture case, docketed as Civil Case No. 0196, this time to recover funds and properties amounting to PhP 202,005,980.55. Civil Case No. 0196 would eventually be raffled also to the Fourth Division of the SB. For convenience and clarity, Civil Case No. 0193 shall hereinafter be also referred to as Forfeiture I and Civil Case No. 0196 as Forfeiture II. Prior to the filing of Forfeiture II, but subsequent to the filing of Forfeiture I, the OMB charged the Garcias and three others with violation of RA 7080 (plunder) under an Information dated April 5, 2005 which placed the value of the property and funds plundered at PhP 303,272,005.99. Docketed as Crim. Case No. 28107, the Information was raffled off to the Second Division of the SB. The plunder charge, as the parties pleadings seem to indicate, covered substantially the same properties identified in both forfeiture cases. After the filing of Forfeiture I, the following events transpired in relation to the case: (1) The corresponding summons were issued and all served on Gen. Garcia at his place of detention. Per the Sheriffs Return4 dated November 2, 2005, the summons were duly served on respondent Garcias. Earlier, or on October 29, 2004, the SB issued a writ of attachment in favor of the Republic, an issuance which Gen. Garcia challenged before this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 165835. Instead of an answer, the Garcias filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of the SBs lack of jurisdiction over separate civil actions for forfeiture. The OMB countered with a motion to expunge and to declare the Garcias in default. To the OMBs motion, the Garcias interposed an opposition in which they manifested that they have meanwhile repaired to the Court on certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 165835 to nullify the writ of attachment SB issued in which case the SB should defer action on the forfeiture case as a matter of judicial courtesy. (2) By Resolution5 of January 20, 2005, the SB denied the motion to dismiss; declared the same motion as pro forma and hence without tolling effect on the period to answer. The same resolution declared the Garcias in default. Another resolution6 denied the Garcias motion for reconsideration and/or to admit answer, and set a date for the ex-parte presentation of the Republics evidence. A second motion for reconsideration was also denied on February 23, 2005, pursuant to the prohibited pleading rule.

CLARITA DEPAKAKIBO GARCIA, Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x G.R. No. 171381 CLARITA DEPAKAKIBO GARCIA, Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents. DECISION VELASCO, JR., J.: The Case Before us are these two (2) consolidated petitions under Rule 65, each interposed by petitioner Clarita D. Garcia, with application for injunctive relief. In the first petition for mandamus and/or certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 170122, petitioner seeks to nullify and set aside the August 5, 2005 Order,1 as reiterated in another Order dated August 26, 2005, both issued by the Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division, which effectively denied the petitioners motion to dismiss and/or to quash Civil Case No. 0193, a suit for forfeiture commenced by the Republic of the Philippines against the petitioner and her immediate family. The second petition for certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 171381, seeks to nullify and set aside the November 9, 2005 Resolution 2 of the Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division, insofar as it likewise denied the petitioners motion to dismiss and/or quash Civil Case No. 0196, another forfeiture case involving the same parties but for different properties. The Facts To recover unlawfully acquired funds and properties in the aggregate amount of PhP 143,052,015.29 that retired Maj. Gen. Carlos F. Garcia, his wife, herein petitioner Clarita, children Ian Carl, Juan Paulo and Timothy Mark (collectively, the Garcias) had allegedly amassed and acquired, the Republic, through the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB), pursuant to Republic Act No. (RA) 1379,3 filed with the Sandiganbayan (SB) on October

78 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

(3) Despite the standing default order, the Garcias moved for the transfer and consolidation of Forfeiture I with the plunder case which were respectively pending in different divisions of the SB, contending that such consolidation is mandatory under RA 8249.7 On May 20, 2005, the SB 4th Division denied the motion for the reason that the forfeiture case is not the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the criminal case of plunder. (4) On July 26, 2005, the Garcias filed another motion to dismiss and/or to quash Forfeiture I on, inter alia, the following grounds: (a) the filing of the plunder case ousted the SB 4th Division of jurisdiction over the forfeiture case; and (b) that the consolidation is imperative in order to avoid possible double jeopardy entanglements. By Order8 of August 5, 2005, the SB merely noted the motion in view of movants having been declared in default which has yet to be lifted. It is upon the foregoing factual antecedents that petitioner Clarita has interposed her first special civil action for mandamus and/or certiorari docketed as G.R. No. 170122, raising the following issues: I. Whether or not the [SB] 4th Division acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion x x x in issuing its challenged order of August 5, 2005 and August 26 2005 that merely "Noted without action," hence refused to resolve petitioners motion to dismiss and/or to quash by virtue of petitioners prior default in that: A. For lack of proper and valid service of summons, the [SB] 4th Division could not have acquired jurisdiction over petitioners, *and her childrens+ x x x persons, much less make them become the true "parties-litigants, contestants or legal adversaries" in forfeiture I. As the *SB+ has not validly acquired jurisdiction over the petitioners *and her childrens+ x x x persons, they could not possibly be declared in default, nor can a valid judgment by default be rendered against them. B. Even then, mere declaration in default does not per se bar petitioner from challenging the *SB+ 4th Divisions lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of forfeiture I as the same can be raised anytime, even after final judgment. In the absence of jurisdiction over the subject matter, any and all proceedings before the [SB] are null and void. C. Contrary to its August 26, 2005 rejection of petitioners motion for reconsideration of the first challenged order that the issue of jurisdiction raised therein had already been passed upon by *the SB 4th Divisions+ resolution of May 20, 2005, the records clearly show that the grounds relied upon by petitioner in her motion to dismiss and/or to quash dated July 26, 2005 were entirely different, separate and distinct from the

grounds set forth in petitioners manifestation and motion *to consolidate+ dated April 15, 2005 that was denied by it per its resolution of May 20, 2005. D. In any event, the [SB] 4th Division has been ousted of jurisdiction over the subject matter of forfeiture I upon the filing of the main plunder case against petitioner that mandates the automatic forfeiture of the subject properties in forfeiture cases I & II as a function or adjunct of any conviction for plunder. E. Being incompatible, the forfeiture law (RA No. 1379 [1955]) was impliedly repealed by the plunder law (RA No. 7080 [1991]) with automatic forfeiture mechanism. F. Since the sought forfeiture includes properties purportedly located in the USA, any penal conviction for forfeiture in this case cannot be enforced outside of the Philippines x x x. G. Based on orderly procedure and sound administration of justice, it is imperative that the matter of forfeiture be exclusively tried in the main plunder case to avoid possible double jeopardy entanglements, and to avoid possible conflicting decisions by 2 divisions of the [SB] on the matter of forfeiture as a penal sanction.9 (Emphasis added.) With respect to Forfeiture II, the following events and proceedings occurred or were taken after the petition for Forfeiture II was filed: (1) On July 12, 2005, the SB sheriff served the corresponding summons. In his return of July 13, 2005, the sheriff stated giving the copies of the summons to the OIC/Custodian of the PNP Detention Center who in turn handed them to Gen. Garcia. The general signed his receipt of the summons, but as to those pertaining to the other respondents, Gen. Garcia acknowledged receiving the same, but with the following qualifying note: "Im receiving the copies of Clarita, Ian Carl, Juan Paolo & Timothy but these copies will not guarantee it being served to the above-named (sic)." (2) On July 26, 2005, Clarita and her children, thru special appearance of counsel, filed a motion to dismiss and/or to quash Forfeiture II primarily for lack of jurisdiction over their persons and on the subject matter thereof which is now covered by the plunder case. To the above motion, the Republic filed its opposition with a motion for alternative service of summons. The motion for alternative service would be repeated in another motion of August 25, 2005. (3) By Joint Resolution of November 9, 2005, the SB denied both the petitioners motion to dismiss and/or to quash and the Republics motion for alternative service of summons. On January 24, 2006, the SB denied petitioners motion for partial reconsideration.10

79 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

From the last two issuances adverted to, Clarita has come to this Court via the instant petition for certiorari, docketed as GR No. 171381. As there submitted, the SB 4th Division acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing its Joint Resolution dated November 9, 2005 and its Resolution of January 24, 2006 denying petitioners motion to dismiss and/or to quash in that: A. Based on its own finding that summons was improperly served on petitioner, the *SB+ ought to have dismissed forfeiture II for lack of jurisdiction over petitioners person x x x. B. By virtue of the plunder case filed with the [SB] Second Division that mandates the automatic forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties upon conviction, the [SB] Fourth Division has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of forfeiture. C. Being incompatible, the forfeiture law (RA No. 1379 [1955]) was impliedly repealed by the plunder law (RA No. 7080 [1991]) with automatic forfeiture mechanism. D. Based on orderly procedure and sound administration of justice, it is imperative that the matter of forfeiture be exclusively tried in the main plunder case to avoid possible double jeopardy entanglements and worse conflicting decisions by 2 divisions of the Sandiganbayan on the matter of forfeiture as a penal sanction.11 (Emphasis added.) Per Resolution of the Court dated March 13, 2006, G.R. No. 170122 and G.R. No. 171381 were consolidated. The Courts Ruling The petitions are partly meritorious. The core issue tendered in these consolidated cases ultimately boils down to the question of jurisdiction and may thusly be couched into whether the Fourth Division of the SB has acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitionerand her three sons for that matterconsidering that, first, vis--vis Civil Case Nos. 0193 (Forfeiture I) and 0196 (Forfeiture II), summons against her have been ineffectively or improperly served and, second, that the plunder caseCrim. Case No. 28107has already been filed and pending with another division of the SB, i.e., Second Division of the SB. Plunder Case in Crim. Case No. 28107 Did Not Absorb the Forfeiture Cases in Civil Case Nos. 0193 and 0196 Petitioner maintains that the SB 4th Division has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of Forfeitures I and II as both cases are now covered or included in the plunder case against the Garcias. Or as petitioner puts it a bit differently, the filing of the main plunder case (Crim. Case No. 28107), with its automatic forfeiture mechanism in the event of conviction, ousted the SB 4th Division of its jurisdiction over the subject matter

of the forfeiture cases. The inclusion of the forfeiture cases with the plunder case is necessary, so petitioner claims, to obviate possible double jeopardy entanglements and colliding case dispositions. Prescinding from these premises, petitioner would ascribe grave abuse of discretion on the SB 4th Division for not granting its separate motions to dismiss the two forfeiture petitions and/or to consolidate them with the plunder case on the foregoing ground. Petitioners contention is untenable. And in response to what she suggests in some of her pleadings, let it be stated at the outset that the SB has jurisdiction over actions for forfeiture under RA 1379, albeit the proceeding thereunder is civil in nature. We said so in Garcia v. Sandiganbayan12 involving no less than petitioners husband questioning certain orders issued in Forfeiture I case. Petitioners posture respecting Forfeitures I and II being absorbed by the plunder case, thus depriving the 4th Division of the SB of jurisdiction over the civil cases, is flawed by the assumptions holding it together, the first assumption being that the forfeiture cases are the corresponding civil action for recovery of civil liability ex delicto. As correctly ruled by the SB 4th Division in its May 20, 2005 Resolution, 13 the civil liability for forfeiture cases does not arise from the commission of a criminal offense, thus: Such liability is based on a statute that safeguards the right of the State to recover unlawfully acquired properties. The action of forfeiture arises when a "public officer or employee [acquires] during his incumbency an amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion of his salary x x x and to his other lawful income x x x." 14 Such amount of property is then presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired.15 Thus "if the respondent [public official] is unable to show to the satisfaction of the court that he has lawfully acquired the property in question, then the court shall declare such property forfeited in favor of the State, and by virtue of such judgment the property aforesaid shall become property of the State.16 x x x (Citations in the original.) Lest it be overlooked, Executive Order No. (EO) 14, Series of 1986, albeit defining only the jurisdiction over cases involving ill-gotten wealth of former President Marcos, his immediate family and business associates, authorizes under its Sec. 317 the filing of forfeiture suits under RA 1379 which will proceed independently of any criminal proceedings. The Court, in Republic v. Sandiganbayan,18 interpreted this provision as empowering the Presidential Commission on Good Government to file independent civil actions separate from the criminal actions. Forfeiture Cases and the Plunder Case Have Separate Causes of Action; the Former Is Civil in Nature while the Latter Is Criminal

80 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

It bears stressing, as a second point, that a forfeiture case under RA 1379 arises out of a cause of action separate and different from a plunder case, thus negating the notion that the crime of plunder charged in Crim. Case No. 28107 absorbs the forfeiture cases. In a prosecution for plunder, what is sought to be established is the commission of the criminal acts in furtherance of the acquisition of ill-gotten wealth. In the language of Sec. 4 of RA 7080, for purposes of establishing the crime of plunder, it is "sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy [to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth]." On the other hand, all that the court needs to determine, by preponderance of evidence, under RA 1379 is the disproportion of respondents properties to his legitimate income, it being unnecessary to prove how he acquired said properties. As correctly formulated by the Solicitor General, the forfeitable nature of the properties under the provisions of RA 1379 does not proceed from a determination of a specific overt act committed by the respondent public officer leading to the acquisition of the illegal wealth.19 Given the foregoing considerations, petitioners thesis on possible double jeopardy entanglements should a judgment of conviction ensue in Crim. Case 28107 collapses entirely. Double jeopardy, as a criminal law concept, refers to jeopardy of punishment for the same offense,20 suggesting that double jeopardy presupposes two separate criminal prosecutions. Proceedings under RA 1379 are, to repeat, civil in nature. As a necessary corollary, one who is sued under RA 1379 may be proceeded against for a criminal offense. Thus, the filing of a case under that law is not barred by the conviction or acquittal of the defendant in Crim. Case 28107 for plunder. Moreover, given the variance in the nature and subject matter of the proceedings between the plunder case and the subject forfeiture cases, petitioners apprehension about the likelihood of conflicting decisions of two different divisions of the anti-graft court on the matter of forfeiture as a penal sanction is specious at best. What the SB said in this regard merits approving citation: On the matter of forfeiture as a penal sanction, respondents argue that the division where the plunder case is pending may issue a decision that would collide or be in conflict with the decision by this division on the forfeiture case. They refer to a situation where this Courts Second Division may exonerate the respondents in the plunder case while the Fourth Division grant the petition for forfeiture for the same properties in favor of the state or vice versa. Suffice it to say that the variance in the decisions of both divisions does not give rise to a conflict. After all, forfeiture in the plunder case requires the attendance of facts and circumstances separate and distinct from that in the forfeiture case. Between the two

(2) cases, there is no causal connection in the facts sought to be established and the issues sought to be addressed. As a result, the decision of this Court in one does not have a bearing on the other. There is also no conflict even if the decisions in both cases result in an order for the forfeiture of the subject properties. The forfeiture following a conviction in the plunder case will apply only to those ill-gotten wealth not recovered by the forfeiture case and vise (sic) versa. This is on the assumption that the information on plunder and the petition for forfeiture cover the same set of properties.21 RA 7080 Did Not Repeal RA 1379 Petitioner takes a different tack in her bid to prove that SB erred in not dismissing Forfeitures I and II with her assertion that RA 7080 impliedly repealed RA 1379. We are not convinced. Nowhere in RA 7080 can we find any provision that would indicate a repeal, expressly or impliedly, of RA 1379. RA 7080 is a penal statute which, at its most basic, aims to penalize the act of any public officer who by himself or in connivance with members of his family amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount of at least PhP 50 million. On the other hand, RA 1379 is not penal in nature, in that it does not make a crime the act of a public official acquiring during his incumbency an amount of property manifestly out of proportion of his salary and other legitimate income. RA 1379 aims to enforce the right of the State to recover the properties which were not lawfully acquired by the officer. It has often been said that all doubts must be resolved against any implied repeal and all efforts should be exerted to harmonize and give effect to all laws and provisions on the same subject. To be sure, both RA 1379 and RA 7080 can very well be harmonized. The Court perceives no irreconcilable conflict between them. One can be enforced without nullifying the other. Sandiganbayan Did Not Acquire Jurisdiction over the Persons of Petitioner and Her Children On the issue of lack of jurisdiction, petitioner argues that the SB did not acquire jurisdiction over her person and that of her children due to a defective substituted service of summons. There is merit in petitioners contention.1 a vv p h i 1 Sec. 7, Rule 14 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure clearly provides for the requirements of a valid substituted service of summons, thus: SEC. 7. Substituted service.If the defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section [personal service on defendant], service may be

81 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendants residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copies at defendants office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof. It is basic that a court must acquire jurisdiction over a party for the latter to be bound by its decision or orders. Valid service of summons, by whatever mode authorized by and proper under the Rules, is the means by which a court acquires jurisdiction over a person.22 In the instant case, it is undisputed that summons for Forfeitures I and II were served personally on Maj. Gen. Carlos Flores Garcia, who is detained at the PNP Detention Center, who acknowledged receipt thereof by affixing his signature. It is also undisputed that substituted service of summons for both Forfeitures I and II were made on petitioner and her children through Maj. Gen. Garcia at the PNP Detention Center. However, such substituted services of summons were invalid for being irregular and defective. In Manotoc v. Court of Appeals,23 we broke down the requirements to be: (1) Impossibility of prompt personal service, i.e., the party relying on substituted service or the sheriff must show that defendant cannot be served promptly or there is impossibility of prompt service within a reasonable time. Reasonable time being "so much time as is necessary under the circumstances for a reasonably prudent and diligent man to do, conveniently, what the contract or duty requires that should be done, having a regard for the rights and possibility of loss, if any[,] to the other party." 24 Moreover, we indicated therein that the sheriff must show several attempts for personal service of at least three (3) times on at least two (2) different dates. (2) Specific details in the return, i.e., the sheriff must describe in the Return of Summons the facts and circumstances surrounding the attempted personal service. (3) Substituted service effected on a person of suitable age and discretion residing at defendants house or residence; or on a competent person in charge of defendants office or regular place of business. From the foregoing requisites, it is apparent that no valid substituted service of summons was made on petitioner and her children, as the service made through Maj. Gen. Garcia did not comply with the first two (2) requirements mentioned above for a valid substituted service of summons. Moreover, the third requirement was also not strictly complied with as the substituted service was made not at petitioners house or residence but in the PNP Detention Center where Maj. Gen. Garcia is detained, even if

the latter is of suitable age and discretion. Hence, no valid substituted service of summons was made. The stringent rules on valid service of summons for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendants, however, admits of exceptions, as when the party voluntarily submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court by asking affirmative relief. 25 In the instant case, the Republic asserts that petitioner is estopped from questioning improper service of summons since the improvident service of summons in both forfeiture cases had been cured by their (petitioner and her children) voluntary appearance in the forfeiture cases. The Republic points to the various pleadings filed by petitioner and her children during the subject forfeiture hearings. We cannot subscribe to the Republics views. Special Appearance to Question a Courts Jurisdiction Is Not Voluntary Appearance The second sentence of Sec. 20, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure clearly provides: Sec. 20. Voluntary appearance.The defendants voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons. The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance. (Emphasis ours.) Thus, a defendant who files a motion to dismiss, assailing the jurisdiction of the court over his person, together with other grounds raised therein, is not deemed to have appeared voluntarily before the court. What the rule on voluntary appearancethe first sentence of the above-quoted rulemeans is that the voluntary appearance of the defendant in court is without qualification, in which case he is deemed to have waived his defense of lack of jurisdiction over his person due to improper service of summons. The pleadings filed by petitioner in the subject forfeiture cases, however, do not show that she voluntarily appeared without qualification. Petitioner filed the following pleadings in Forfeiture I: (a) motion to dismiss; (b) motion for reconsideration and/or to admit answer; (c) second motion for reconsideration; (d) motion to consolidate forfeiture case with plunder case; and (e) motion to dismiss and/or to quash Forfeiture I. And in Forfeiture II: (a) motion to dismiss and/or to quash Forfeiture II; and (b) motion for partial reconsideration. The foregoing pleadings, particularly the motions to dismiss, were filed by petitioner solely for special appearance with the purpose of challenging the jurisdiction of the SB over her person and that of her three children. Petitioner asserts therein that SB did not acquire jurisdiction over her person and of her three children for lack of valid service of summons through improvident substituted service of summons in both Forfeiture I

82 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

and Forfeiture II. This stance the petitioner never abandoned when she filed her motions for reconsideration, even with a prayer to admit their attached Answer Ex Abundante Ad Cautelam dated January 22, 2005 setting forth affirmative defenses with a claim for damages. And the other subsequent pleadings, likewise, did not abandon her stance and defense of lack of jurisdiction due to improper substituted services of summons in the forfeiture cases. Evidently, from the foregoing Sec. 20, Rule 14 of the 1997 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure, petitioner and her sons did not voluntarily appear before the SB constitutive of or equivalent to service of summons. Moreover, the leading La Naval Drug Corp. v. Court of Appeals26 applies to the instant case. Said case elucidates the current view in our jurisdiction that a special appearance before the courtchallenging its jurisdiction over the person through a motion to dismiss even if the movant invokes other groundsis not tantamount to estoppel or a waiver by the movant of his objection to jurisdiction over his person; and such is not constitutive of a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court. Thus, it cannot be said that petitioner and her three children voluntarily appeared before the SB to cure the defective substituted services of summons. They are, therefore, not estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the SB over their persons nor are they deemed to have waived such defense of lack of jurisdiction. Consequently, there being no valid substituted services of summons made, the SB did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of petitioner and her children. And perforce, the proceedings in the subject forfeiture cases, insofar as petitioner and her three children are concerned, are null and void for lack of jurisdiction. Thus, the order declaring them in default must be set aside and voided insofar as petitioner and her three children are concerned. For the forfeiture case to proceed against them, it is, thus, imperative for the SB to serve anew summons or alias summons on the petitioner and her three children in order to acquire jurisdiction over their persons. WHEREFORE, the petitions for certiorari and mandamus are PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division has not acquired jurisdiction over petitioner Clarita D. Garcia and her three children. The proceedings in Civil Case Nos. 0193 and 0196 before the Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division, insofar as they pertain to petitioner and her three children, are VOID for lack of jurisdiction over their persons. No costs. SO ORDERED. PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice

83 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 138822 January 23, 2001

On 23 December 1998, the Court of Appeals11 sustained the trial court, finding that petitioner's own admissions, as contained in her answer, show that her counterclaim is merely permissive. The relevant portion of the appellate court's decision 12 is quoted herewith Contrary to the protestations of appellant, mere reading of the allegations in the answer a quo will readily show that her counterclaim can in no way be compulsory. Take note of the following numbered paragraphs in her answer: "(14) That, indeed, FGU's cause of action which is not supported by any document other than the self-serving 'Statement of Account' dated March 28, 1988 x x x (15) That it should be noted that the cause of action of FGU is not the enforcement of the Special Agent's Contract but the alleged 'cash accountabilities which are not based on written agreement x x x. x x x x

EVANGELINE ALDAY, petitioner, vs. FGU INSURANCE CORPORATION, respondent. GONZAGA-REYES, J.: On 5 May 1989, respondent FGU Insurance Corporation filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court of Makati1 alleging that petitioner Evangeline K. Alday owed it P114,650.76, representing unliquidated cash advances, unremitted costs of premiums and other charges incurred by petitioner in the course of her work as an insurance agent for respondent.2 Respondent also prayed for exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and costs of suit.3 Petitioner filed her answer and by way of counterclaim, asserted her right for the payment of P104,893.45, representing direct commissions, profit commissions and contingent bonuses earned from 1 July 1986 to 7 December 1986, and for accumulated premium reserves amounting to P500,000.00. In addition, petitioner prayed for attorney's fees, litigation expenses, moral damages and exemplary damages for the allegedly unfounded action filed by respondent.4 On 23 August 1989, respondent filed a "Motion to Strike Out Answer With Compulsory Counterclaim And To Declare Defendant In Default" because petitioner's answer was allegedly filed out of time. 5 However, the trial court denied the motion on 25 August 1989 and similarly rejected respondent's motion for reconsideration on 12 March 1990. 6 A few weeks later, on 11 April 1990, respondent filed a motion to dismiss petitioner's counterclaim, contending that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the same because of the nonpayment of docket fees by petitoner.7 In response, petitioner asked the trial court to declare her counterclaim as exempt from payment of docket fees since it is compulsory and that respondent be declared in default for having failed to answer such counterclaim.8 In its 18 September 1990 Order, the trial court9 granted respondent's motion to dismiss petitioner's counterclaim and consequently, denied petitioner's motion. The court found petitioner's counterclaim to be merely permissive in nature and held that petitioner's failure to pay docket fees prevented the court from acquiring jurisdiction over the same.10 The trial court similar denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration on 28 February 1991.

(19) x x x A careful analysis of FGU's three-page complaint will show that its cause of action is not for specific performance or enforcement of the Special Agent's Contract rather, it is for the payment of the alleged cash accountabilities incurred by defendant during the period form [sic] 1975 to 1986 which claim is executory and has not been ratified. It is the established rule that unenforceable contracts, like this purported money claim of FGU, cannot be sued upon or enforced unless ratified, thus it is as if they have no effect. x x x." To support the heading "Compulsory Counterclaim" in her answer and give the impression that the counterclaim is compulsory appellant alleged that "FGU has unjustifiably failed to remit to defendant despite repeated demands in gross violation of their Special Agent's Contract x x x." The reference to said contract was included purposely to mislead. While on one hand appellant alleged that appellee's cause of action had nothing to do with the Special Agent's Contract, on the other hand, she claim that FGU violated said contract which gives rise of [sic] her cause of action. Clearly, appellant's cash accountabilities cannot be the offshoot of appellee's alleged violation of the aforesaid contract. On 19 May 1999, the appellate court denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration,13 giving rise to the present petition. Before going into the substantive issues, the Court shall first dispose of some procedural matters raised by the parties. Petitioner claims that respondent is estopped from questioning her non-payment of docket fees because it did not raise this particular issue when it filed its motion - the "Motion to Strike out Answer With Compulsory Counterclaim And To Declare Defendant In Default" - with the trial court; rather, it was

84 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

only nine months after receiving petitioner's answer that respondent assailed the trial court's lack of jurisdiction over petitioner's counterclaims based on the latter's failure to pay docket fees.14 Petitioner's position is unmeritorious. Estoppel by laches arises from the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it.15 In the case at bar, respondent cannot be considered as estopped from assailing the trial court's jurisdiction over petitioner's counterclaim since this issue was raised by respondent with the trial court itself - the body where the action is pending even before the presentation of any evidence by the parties and definitely, way before any judgment could be rendered by the trial court. Meanwhile, respondent questions the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over the appeal filed by petitioner from the 18 September 1990 and 28 February 1991 orders of the trial court. It is significant to note that this objection to the appellate court's jurisdiction is raised for the first time before this Court; respondent never having raised this issue before the appellate court. Although the lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the action, a party may be estopped from raising such questions if he has actively taken part in the very proceedings which he questions, belatedly objecting to the court's jurisdiction in the event that the judgment or order subsequently rendered is adverse to him.16 In this case, respondent actively took part in the proceedings before the Court of Appeals by filing its appellee's brief with the same.17 Its participation, when taken together with its failure to object to the appellate court's jurisdiction during the entire duration of the proceedings before such court, demonstrates a willingness to abide by the resolution of the case by such tribunal and accordingly, respondent is now most decidedly estopped from objecting to the Court of Appeals' assumption of jurisdiction over petitioner's appeal.18 The basic issue for resolution in this case is whether or not the counterclaim of petitioner is compulsory or permissive in nature. A compulsory counterclaim is one which, being cognizable by the regular courts of justice, arises out of or is connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of the opposing party's claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.19 In Valencia v. Court of Appeals,20 this Court capsulized the criteria or tests that may be used in determining whether a counterclaim is compulsory or permissive, summarized as follows: 1. Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and counterclaim largely the same? 2. Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant's claim absent the compulsory counterclaim rule?

3. Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiff's claim as well s defendant's counterclaim? 4. Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim? Another test, applied in the more recent case of Quintanilla v. Court of Appeals,21 is the "compelling test of compulsoriness" which requires "a logical relationship between the claim and counterclaim, that is, where conducting separate trials of the respective claims of the parties would entail a substantial duplication of effort and time by the parties and the court." As contained in her answer, petitioner's counterclaims are as follows: (20) That defendant incorporates and repleads by reference all the foregoing allegations as may be material to her Counterclaim against FGU. (21) That FGU is liable to pay the following just, valid and legitimate claims of defendant: (a) the sum of at least P104,893.45 plus maximum interest thereon representing, among others, direct commissions, profit commissions and contingent bonuses legally due to defendant; and (b) the minimum amount of P500,000.00 plus the maximum allowable interest representing defendant's accumulated premium reserve for 1985 and previous years, which FGU has unjustifiably failed to remit to defendant despite repeated demands in gross violation of their Special Agent's Contract and in contravention of the principle of law that "every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith." (22) That as a result of the filing of this patently baseless, malicious and unjustified Complaint, and FGU's unlawful, illegal and vindictive termination of their Special Agent's Contract, defendant was unnecessarily dragged into this litigation and to defense [sic] her side and assert her rights and claims against FGU, she was compelled to hire the services of counsel with whom she agreed to pay the amount of P30,000.00 as and for attorney's fees and stands to incur litigation expenses in the amount estimated to at least P20,000.00 and for which FGU should be assessed and made liable to pay defendant. (23) That considering further the malicious and unwarranted action of defendant in filing this grossly unfounded action, defendant has suffered and continues to suffer from serious anxiety, mental anguish, fright and humiliation. In addition to this, defendant's name, good reputation and business standing in the insurance business as well as in the community have been besmirched and for which FGU should be adjudged and made liable to pay moral damages to defendant in the amount of P300,000.00 as minimum.

85 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

(24) That in order to discourage the filing of groundless and malicious suits like FGU's Complaint, and by way of serving [as] an example for the public good, FGU should be penalized and assessed exemplary damages in the sum of P100,000.00 or such amount as the Honorable Court may deem warranted under the circumstances.22 Tested against the abovementioned standards, petitioner's counterclaim for commissions, bonuses, and accumulated premium reserves is merely permissive. The evidence required to prove petitioner's claims differs from that needed to establish respondent's demands for the recovery of cash accountabilities from petitioner, such as cash advances and costs of premiums. The recovery of respondent's claims is not contingent or dependent upon establishing petitioner's counterclaim, such that conducting separate trials will not result in the substantial duplication of the time and effort of the court and the parties. One would search the records in vain for a logical connection between the parties' claims. This conclusion is further reinforced by petitioner's own admissions since she declared in her answer that respondent's cause of action, unlike her own, was not based upon the Special Agent's Contract. 23 However, petitioner's claims for damages, allegedly suffered as a result of the filing by respondent of its complaint, are compulsory.24 There is no need for need for petitioner to pay docket fees for her compulsory counterclaim.25 On the other hand, in order for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction over her permissive counterclaim, petitioner is bound to pay the prescribed docket fees. 26 The rule on the payment of filing fees has been laid down by the Court in the case of Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. V. Hon. Maximiano Asuncion271. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject-matter or nature of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. 2. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third-party claims and similar pleadings, which shall not be considered filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed therefor is paid. The court may allow payment of said fee within a reasonable time but also in no case beyond its applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. 3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the appropriate pleading and payment of the prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or if specified the same has been left for determination by the court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on

the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional fee. The above mentioned ruling in Sun Insurance has been reiterated in the recent case of Susan v. Court of Appeals.28 In Suson, the Court explained that although the payment of the prescribed docket fees is a jurisdictional requirement, its non-payment does not result in the automatic dismissal of the case provided the docket fees are paid within the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. Coming now to the case at bar, it has not been alleged by respondent and there is nothing in the records to show that petitioner has attempted to evade the payment of the proper docket fees for her permissive counterclaim. As a matter of fact, after respondent filed its motion to dismiss petitioner's counterclaim based on her failure to pay docket fees, petitioner immediately filed a motion with the trial court, asking it to declare her counterclaim as compulsory in nature and therefore exempt from docket fees and, in addition, to declare that respondent was in default for its failure to answer her counterclaim.29 However, the trial court dismissed petitioner's counterclaim. Pursuant to this Court's ruling in Sun Insurance, the trial court should have instead given petitioner a reasonable time, but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period, to pay the filing fees for her permissive counterclaim. Petitioner asserts that the trial court should have declared respondent in default for having failed to answer her counterclaim.30 Insofar as the permissive counterclaim of petitioner is concerned, there is obviously no need to file an answer until petitioner has paid the prescribed docket fees for only then shall the court acquire jurisdiction over such claim.31 Meanwhile, the compulsory counterclaim of petitioner for damages based on the filing by respondent of an allegedly unfounded and malicious suit need not be answered since it is inseparable from the claims of respondent. If respondent were to answer the compulsory counterclaim of petitioner, it would merely result in the former pleading the same facts raised in its complaint.32 WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on 23 December 1998 and its 19 May 1999 Resolution are hereby MODIFIED. The compulsory counterclaim of petitioner for damages filed in Civil Case No. 89-3816 is ordered REINSTATED. Meanwhile, the Regional Trial Court of Makati (Branch 134) is ordered to require petitioner to pay the prescribed docket fees for her permissive counterclaim (direct commissions, profit commissions, contingent bonuses and accumulated premium reserves), after ascertaining that the applicable prescriptive period has not yet set in. 33 SO ORDERED. Melo, Vitug, Panganiban, and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.

86 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 143581 January 7, 2008

warehouse building to house the LPG manufacturing plant. The monthly rental was PhP 322,560 commencing on January 1, 1998 with a 10% annual increment clause. Subsequently, the machineries, equipment, and facilities for the manufacture of LPG cylinders were shipped, delivered, and installed in the Carmona plant. PGSMC paid KOGIES USD 1,224,000. However, gleaned from the Certificate4 executed by the parties on January 22, 1998, after the installation of the plant, the initial operation could not be conducted as PGSMC encountered financial difficulties affecting the supply of materials, thus forcing the parties to agree that KOGIES would be deemed to have completely complied with the terms and conditions of the March 5, 1997 contract. For the remaining balance of USD306,000 for the installation and initial operation of the plant, PGSMC issued two postdated checks: (1) BPI Check No. 0316412 dated January 30, 1998 for PhP 4,500,000; and (2) BPI Check No. 0316413 dated March 30, 1998 for PhP 4,500,000.5 When KOGIES deposited the checks, these were dishonored for the reason "PAYMENT STOPPED." Thus, on May 8, 1998, KOGIES sent a demand letter6 to PGSMC threatening criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 in case of nonpayment. On the same date, the wife of PGSMCs President faxed a letter dated May 7, 1998 to KOGIES President who was then staying at a Makati City hotel. She complained that not only did KOGIES deliver a different brand of hydraulic press from that agreed upon but it had not delivered several equipment parts already paid for. On May 14, 1998, PGSMC replied that the two checks it issued KOGIES were fully funded but the payments were stopped for reasons previously made known to KOGIES. 7 On June 1, 1998, PGSMC informed KOGIES that PGSMC was canceling their Contract dated March 5, 1997 on the ground that KOGIES had altered the quantity and lowered the quality of the machineries and equipment it delivered to PGSMC, and that PGSMC would dismantle and transfer the machineries, equipment, and facilities installed in the Carmona plant. Five days later, PGSMC filed before the Office of the Public Prosecutor an Affidavit-Complaint for Estafa docketed as I.S. No. 98-03813 against Mr. Dae Hyun Kang, President of KOGIES. On June 15, 1998, KOGIES wrote PGSMC informing the latter that PGSMC could not unilaterally rescind their contract nor dismantle and transfer the machineries and equipment on mere imagined violations by KOGIES. It also insisted that their disputes should be settled by arbitration as agreed upon in Article 15, the arbitration clause of their contract.

KOREA TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., petitioner, vs. HON. ALBERTO A. LERMA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 256 of Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, and PACIFIC GENERAL STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, respondents. DECISION VELASCO, JR., J.: In our jurisdiction, the policy is to favor alternative methods of resolving disputes, particularly in civil and commercial disputes. Arbitration along with mediation, conciliation, and negotiation, being inexpensive, speedy and less hostile methods have long been favored by this Court. The petition before us puts at issue an arbitration clause in a contract mutually agreed upon by the parties stipulating that they would submit themselves to arbitration in a foreign country. Regrettably, instead of hastening the resolution of their dispute, the parties wittingly or unwittingly prolonged the controversy. Petitioner Korea Technologies Co., Ltd. (KOGIES) is a Korean corporation which is engaged in the supply and installation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Cylinder manufacturing plants, while private respondent Pacific General Steel Manufacturing Corp. (PGSMC) is a domestic corporation. On March 5, 1997, PGSMC and KOGIES executed a Contract1 whereby KOGIES would set up an LPG Cylinder Manufacturing Plant in Carmona, Cavite. The contract was executed in the Philippines. On April 7, 1997, the parties executed, in Korea, an Amendment for Contract No. KLP-970301 dated March 5, 19972 amending the terms of payment. The contract and its amendment stipulated that KOGIES will ship the machinery and facilities necessary for manufacturing LPG cylinders for which PGSMC would pay USD 1,224,000. KOGIES would install and initiate the operation of the plant for which PGSMC bound itself to pay USD 306,000 upon the plants production of the 11-kg. LPG cylinder samples. Thus, the total contract price amounted to USD 1,530,000. On October 14, 1997, PGSMC entered into a Contract of Lease3 with Worth Properties, Inc. (Worth) for use of Worths 5,079-square meter property with a 4,032-square meter

87 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

On June 23, 1998, PGSMC again wrote KOGIES reiterating the contents of its June 1, 1998 letter threatening that the machineries, equipment, and facilities installed in the plant would be dismantled and transferred on July 4, 1998. Thus, on July 1, 1998, KOGIES instituted an Application for Arbitration before the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) in Seoul, Korea pursuant to Art. 15 of the Contract as amended. On July 3, 1998, KOGIES filed a Complaint for Specific Performance, docketed as Civil Case No. 98-1178 against PGSMC before the Muntinlupa City Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) on July 4, 1998, which was subsequently extended until July 22, 1998. In its complaint, KOGIES alleged that PGSMC had initially admitted that the checks that were stopped were not funded but later on claimed that it stopped payment of the checks for the reason that "their value was not received" as the former allegedly breached their contract by "altering the quantity and lowering the quality of the machinery and equipment" installed in the plant and failed to make the plant operational although it earlier certified to the contrary as shown in a January 22, 1998 Certificate. Likewise, KOGIES averred that PGSMC violated Art. 15 of their Contract, as amended, by unilaterally rescinding the contract without resorting to arbitration. KOGIES also asked that PGSMC be restrained from dismantling and transferring the machinery and equipment installed in the plant which the latter threatened to do on July 4, 1998. On July 9, 1998, PGSMC filed an opposition to the TRO arguing that KOGIES was not entitled to the TRO since Art. 15, the arbitration clause, was null and void for being against public policy as it ousts the local courts of jurisdiction over the instant controversy. On July 17, 1998, PGSMC filed its Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim9 asserting that it had the full right to dismantle and transfer the machineries and equipment because it had paid for them in full as stipulated in the contract; that KOGIES was not entitled to the PhP 9,000,000 covered by the checks for failing to completely install and make the plant operational; and that KOGIES was liable for damages amounting to PhP 4,500,000 for altering the quantity and lowering the quality of the machineries and equipment. Moreover, PGSMC averred that it has already paid PhP 2,257,920 in rent (covering January to July 1998) to Worth and it was not willing to further shoulder the cost of renting the premises of the plant considering that the LPG cylinder manufacturing plant never became operational. After the parties submitted their Memoranda, on July 23, 1998, the RTC issued an Order denying the application for a writ of preliminary injunction, reasoning that PGSMC had paid KOGIES USD 1,224,000, the value of the machineries and equipment as shown in

the contract such that KOGIES no longer had proprietary rights over them. And finally, the RTC held that Art. 15 of the Contract as amended was invalid as it tended to oust the trial court or any other court jurisdiction over any dispute that may arise between the parties. KOGIES prayer for an injunctive writ was denied. 10 The dispositive portion of the Order stated: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing consideration, this Court believes and so holds that no cogent reason exists for this Court to grant the writ of preliminary injunction to restrain and refrain defendant from dismantling the machineries and facilities at the lot and building of Worth Properties, Incorporated at Carmona, Cavite and transfer the same to another site: and therefore denies plaintiffs application for a writ of preliminary injunction. On July 29, 1998, KOGIES filed its Reply to Answer and Answer to Counterclaim. 11 KOGIES denied it had altered the quantity and lowered the quality of the machinery, equipment, and facilities it delivered to the plant. It claimed that it had performed all the undertakings under the contract and had already produced certified samples of LPG cylinders. It averred that whatever was unfinished was PGSMCs fault since it failed to procure raw materials due to lack of funds. KOGIES, relying on Chung Fu Industries (Phils.), Inc. v. Court of Appeals,12 insisted that the arbitration clause was without question valid. After KOGIES filed a Supplemental Memorandum with Motion to Dismiss 13 answering PGSMCs memorandum of July 22, 1998 and seeking dismissal of PGSMCs counterclaims, KOGIES, on August 4, 1998, filed its Motion for Reconsideration 14 of the July 23, 1998 Order denying its application for an injunctive writ claiming that the contract was not merely for machinery and facilities worth USD 1,224,000 but was for the sale of an "LPG manufacturing plant" consisting of "supply of all the machinery and facilities" and "transfer of technology" for a total contract price of USD 1,530,000 such that the dismantling and transfer of the machinery and facilities would result in the dismantling and transfer of the very plant itself to the great prejudice of KOGIES as the still unpaid owner/seller of the plant. Moreover, KOGIES points out that the arbitration clause under Art. 15 of the Contract as amended was a valid arbitration stipulation under Art. 2044 of the Civil Code and as held by this Court in Chung Fu Industries (Phils.), Inc.15 In the meantime, PGSMC filed a Motion for Inspection of Things16 to determine whether there was indeed alteration of the quantity and lowering of quality of the machineries and equipment, and whether these were properly installed. KOGIES opposed the motion positing that the queries and issues raised in the motion for inspection fell under the coverage of the arbitration clause in their contract.

88 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

On September 21, 1998, the trial court issued an Order (1) granting PGSMCs motion for inspection; (2) denying KOGIES motion for reconsideration of the July 23, 1998 RTC Order; and (3) denying KOGIES motion to dismiss PGSMCs compulsory counterclaims as these counterclaims fell within the requisites of compulsory counterclaims. On October 2, 1998, KOGIES filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration17 of the September 21, 1998 RTC Order granting inspection of the plant and denying dismissal of PGSMCs compulsory counterclaims. Ten days after, on October 12, 1998, without waiting for the resolution of its October 2, 1998 urgent motion for reconsideration, KOGIES filed before the Court of Appeals (CA) a petition for certiorari18 docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 49249, seeking annulment of the July 23, 1998 and September 21, 1998 RTC Orders and praying for the issuance of writs of prohibition, mandamus, and preliminary injunction to enjoin the RTC and PGSMC from inspecting, dismantling, and transferring the machineries and equipment in the Carmona plant, and to direct the RTC to enforce the specific agreement on arbitration to resolve the dispute. In the meantime, on October 19, 1998, the RTC denied KOGIES urgent motion for reconsideration and directed the Branch Sheriff to proceed with the inspection of the machineries and equipment in the plant on October 28, 1998.19 Thereafter, KOGIES filed a Supplement to the Petition20 in CA-G.R. SP No. 49249 informing the CA about the October 19, 1998 RTC Order. It also reiterated its prayer for the issuance of the writs of prohibition, mandamus and preliminary injunction which was not acted upon by the CA. KOGIES asserted that the Branch Sheriff did not have the technical expertise to ascertain whether or not the machineries and equipment conformed to the specifications in the contract and were properly installed. On November 11, 1998, the Branch Sheriff filed his Sheriffs Report21 finding that the enumerated machineries and equipment were not fully and properly installed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court and declared the arbitration clause against public policy On May 30, 2000, the CA rendered the assailed Decision22 affirming the RTC Orders and dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by KOGIES. The CA found that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in issuing the assailed July 23, 1998 and September 21, 1998 Orders. Moreover, the CA reasoned that KOGIES contention that the total contract price for USD 1,530,000 was for the whole plant and had not been fully paid was contrary to the finding of the RTC that PGSMC fully paid the price of USD 1,224,000, which was for all the machineries and equipment. According to the CA, this

determination by the RTC was a factual finding beyond the ambit of a petition for certiorari. On the issue of the validity of the arbitration clause, the CA agreed with the lower court that an arbitration clause which provided for a final determination of the legal rights of the parties to the contract by arbitration was against public policy. On the issue of nonpayment of docket fees and non-attachment of a certificate of nonforum shopping by PGSMC, the CA held that the counterclaims of PGSMC were compulsory ones and payment of docket fees was not required since the Answer with counterclaim was not an initiatory pleading. For the same reason, the CA said a certificate of non-forum shopping was also not required. Furthermore, the CA held that the petition for certiorari had been filed prematurely since KOGIES did not wait for the resolution of its urgent motion for reconsideration of the September 21, 1998 RTC Order which was the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available. According to the CA, the RTC must be given the opportunity to correct any alleged error it has committed, and that since the assailed orders were interlocutory, these cannot be the subject of a petition for certiorari. Hence, we have this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. The Issues Petitioner posits that the appellate court committed the following errors: a. PRONOUNCING THE QUESTION OF OWNERSHIP OVER THE MACHINERY AND FACILITIES AS "A QUESTION OF FACT" "BEYOND THE AMBIT OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI" INTENDED ONLY FOR CORRECTION OF ERRORS OF JURISDICTION OR GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF (SIC) EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, AND CONCLUDING THAT THE TRIAL COURTS FINDING ON THE SAME QUESTION WAS IMPROPERLY RAISED IN THE PETITION BELOW; b. DECLARING AS NULL AND VOID THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN ARTICLE 15 OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES FOR BEING "CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY" AND FOR OUSTING THE COURTS OF JURISDICTION; c. DECREEING PRIVATE RESPONDENTS COUNTERCLAIMS TO BE ALL COMPULSORY NOT NECESSITATING PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING; d. RULING THAT THE PETITION WAS FILED PREMATURELY WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE RESOLUTION OF THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER DATED SEPTEMBER 21, 1998 OR WITHOUT GIVING THE TRIAL COURT AN OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT ITSELF;

89 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

e. PROCLAIMING THE TWO ORDERS DATED JULY 23 AND SEPTEMBER 21, 1998 NOT TO BE PROPER SUBJECTS OF CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION FOR BEING "INTERLOCUTORY IN NATURE;" f. NOT GRANTING THE RELIEFS AND REMEDIES PRAYED FOR IN HE (SIC) PETITION AND, INSTEAD, DISMISSING THE SAME FOR ALLEGEDLY "WITHOUT MERIT." 23 The Courts Ruling The petition is partly meritorious. Before we delve into the substantive issues, we shall first tackle the procedural issues. The rules on the payment of docket fees for counterclaims and cross claims were amended effective August 16, 2004 KOGIES strongly argues that when PGSMC filed the counterclaims, it should have paid docket fees and filed a certificate of non-forum shopping, and that its failure to do so was a fatal defect. We disagree with KOGIES. As aptly ruled by the CA, the counterclaims of PGSMC were incorporated in its Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim dated July 17, 1998 in accordance with Section 8 of Rule 11, 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the rule that was effective at the time the Answer with Counterclaim was filed. Sec. 8 on existing counterclaim or cross-claim states, "A compulsory counterclaim or a cross-claim that a defending party has at the time he files his answer shall be contained therein." On July 17, 1998, at the time PGSMC filed its Answer incorporating its counterclaims against KOGIES, it was not liable to pay filing fees for said counterclaims being compulsory in nature. We stress, however, that effective August 16, 2004 under Sec. 7, Rule 141, as amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC, docket fees are now required to be paid in compulsory counterclaim or cross-claims. As to the failure to submit a certificate of forum shopping, PGSMCs Answer is not an initiatory pleading which requires a certification against forum shopping under Sec. 5 24 of Rule 7, 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. It is a responsive pleading, hence, the courts a quo did not commit reversible error in denying KOGIES motion to dismiss PGSMCs compulsory counterclaims. Interlocutory orders proper subject of certiorari Citing Gamboa v. Cruz,25 the CA also pronounced that "certiorari and Prohibition are neither the remedies to question the propriety of an interlocutory order of the trial court."26 The CA erred on its reliance on Gamboa. Gamboa involved the denial of a

motion to acquit in a criminal case which was not assailable in an action for certiorari since the denial of a motion to quash required the accused to plead and to continue with the trial, and whatever objections the accused had in his motion to quash can then be used as part of his defense and subsequently can be raised as errors on his appeal if the judgment of the trial court is adverse to him. The general rule is that interlocutory orders cannot be challenged by an appeal.27 Thus, in Yamaoka v. Pescarich Manufacturing Corporation, we held: The proper remedy in such cases is an ordinary appeal from an adverse judgment on the merits, incorporating in said appeal the grounds for assailing the interlocutory orders. Allowing appeals from interlocutory orders would result in the sorry spectacle of a case being subject of a counterproductive ping-pong to and from the appellate court as often as a trial court is perceived to have made an error in any of its interlocutory rulings. However, where the assailed interlocutory order was issued with grave abuse of discretion or patently erroneous and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief, the Court allows certiorari as a mode of redress.28 Also, appeals from interlocutory orders would open the floodgates to endless occasions for dilatory motions. Thus, where the interlocutory order was issued without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, the remedy is certiorari.29 The alleged grave abuse of discretion of the respondent court equivalent to lack of jurisdiction in the issuance of the two assailed orders coupled with the fact that there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law amply provides the basis for allowing the resort to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Prematurity of the petition before the CA Neither do we think that KOGIES was guilty of forum shopping in filing the petition for certiorari. Note that KOGIES motion for reconsideration of the July 23, 1998 RTC Order which denied the issuance of the injunctive writ had already been denied. Thus, KOGIES only remedy was to assail the RTCs interlocutory order via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. While the October 2, 1998 motion for reconsideration of KOGIES of the September 21, 1998 RTC Order relating to the inspection of things, and the allowance of the compulsory counterclaims has not yet been resolved, the circumstances in this case would allow an exception to the rule that before certiorari may be availed of, the petitioner must have filed a motion for reconsideration and said motion should have been first resolved by the court a quo. The reason behind the rule is "to enable the lower court, in the first instance, to pass upon and correct its mistakes without the intervention of the higher court."30

90 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

The September 21, 1998 RTC Order directing the branch sheriff to inspect the plant, equipment, and facilities when he is not competent and knowledgeable on said matters is evidently flawed and devoid of any legal support. Moreover, there is an urgent necessity to resolve the issue on the dismantling of the facilities and any further delay would prejudice the interests of KOGIES. Indeed, there is real and imminent threat of irreparable destruction or substantial damage to KOGIES equipment and machineries. We find the resort to certiorari based on the gravely abusive orders of the trial court sans the ruling on the October 2, 1998 motion for reconsideration to be proper. The Core Issue: Article 15 of the Contract We now go to the core issue of the validity of Art. 15 of the Contract, the arbitration clause. It provides: Article 15. Arbitration.All disputes, controversies, or differences which may arise between the parties, out of or in relation to or in connection with this Contract or for the breach thereof, shall finally be settled by arbitration in Seoul, Korea in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. The award rendered by the arbitration(s) shall be final and binding upon both parties concerned. (Emphasis supplied.) Petitioner claims the RTC and the CA erred in ruling that the arbitration clause is null and void. Petitioner is correct. Established in this jurisdiction is the rule that the law of the place where the contract is made governs. Lex loci contractus. The contract in this case was perfected here in the Philippines. Therefore, our laws ought to govern. Nonetheless, Art. 2044 of the Civil Code sanctions the validity of mutually agreed arbitral clause or the finality and binding effect of an arbitral award. Art. 2044 provides, "Any stipulation that the arbitrators award or decision shall be final, is valid, without prejudice to Articles 2038, 2039 and 2040." (Emphasis supplied.) Arts. 2038,31 2039,32 and 204033 abovecited refer to instances where a compromise or an arbitral award, as applied to Art. 2044 pursuant to Art. 2043, 34 may be voided, rescinded, or annulled, but these would not denigrate the finality of the arbitral award. The arbitration clause was mutually and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties. It has not been shown to be contrary to any law, or against morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. There has been no showing that the parties have not dealt with each other on equal footing. We find no reason why the arbitration clause should not be respected and complied with by both parties. In Gonzales v. Climax Mining Ltd.,35 we held that submission to arbitration is a contract and that a clause in a contract providing

that all matters in dispute between the parties shall be referred to arbitration is a contract.36 Again in Del Monte Corporation-USA v. Court of Appeals, we likewise ruled that "[t]he provision to submit to arbitration any dispute arising therefrom and the relationship of the parties is part of that contract and is itself a contract." 37 Arbitration clause not contrary to public policy The arbitration clause which stipulates that the arbitration must be done in Seoul, Korea in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the KCAB, and that the arbitral award is final and binding, is not contrary to public policy. This Court has sanctioned the validity of arbitration clauses in a catena of cases. In the 1957 case of Eastboard Navigation Ltd. v. Juan Ysmael and Co., Inc.,38 this Court had occasion to rule that an arbitration clause to resolve differences and breaches of mutually agreed contractual terms is valid. In BF Corporation v. Court of Appeals, we held that "[i]n this jurisdiction, arbitration has been held valid and constitutional. Even before the approval on June 19, 1953 of Republic Act No. 876, this Court has countenanced the settlement of disputes through arbitration. Republic Act No. 876 was adopted to supplement the New Civil Codes provisions on arbitration."39 And in LM Power Engineering Corporation v. Capitol Industrial Construction Groups, Inc., we declared that: Being an inexpensive, speedy and amicable method of settling disputes, arbitration along with mediation, conciliation and negotiationis encouraged by the Supreme Court. Aside from unclogging judicial dockets, arbitration also hastens the resolution of disputes, especially of the commercial kind. It is thus regarded as the "wave of the future" in international civil and commercial disputes. Brushing aside a contractual agreement calling for arbitration between the parties would be a step backward. Consistent with the above-mentioned policy of encouraging alternative dispute resolution methods, courts should liberally construe arbitration clauses. Provided such clause is susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute, an order to arbitrate should be granted. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of arbitration. 40 Having said that the instant arbitration clause is not against public policy, we come to the question on what governs an arbitration clause specifying that in case of any dispute arising from the contract, an arbitral panel will be constituted in a foreign country and the arbitration rules of the foreign country would govern and its award shall be final and binding. RA 9285 incorporated the UNCITRAL Model law to which we are a signatory For domestic arbitration proceedings, we have particular agencies to arbitrate disputes arising from contractual relations. In case a foreign arbitral body is chosen by the parties, the arbitration rules of our domestic arbitration bodies would not be applied. As

91 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

signatory to the Arbitration Rules of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration41 of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) in the New York Convention on June 21, 1985, the Philippines committed itself to be bound by the Model Law. We have even incorporated the Model Law in Republic Act No. (RA) 9285, otherwise known as the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004 entitled An Act to Institutionalize the Use of an Alternative Dispute Resolution System in the Philippines and to Establish the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution, and for Other Purposes, promulgated on April 2, 2004. Secs. 19 and 20 of Chapter 4 of the Model Law are the pertinent provisions: CHAPTER 4 - INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION SEC. 19. Adoption of the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. International commercial arbitration shall be governed by the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the "Model Law") adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on June 21, 1985 (United Nations Document A/40/17) and recommended for enactment by the General Assembly in Resolution No. 40/72 approved on December 11, 1985, copy of which is hereto attached as Appendix "A". SEC. 20. Interpretation of Model Law.In interpreting the Model Law, regard shall be had to its international origin and to the need for uniformity in its interpretation and resort may be made to the travaux preparatories and the report of the Secretary General of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law dated March 25, 1985 entitled, "International Commercial Arbitration: Analytical Commentary on Draft Trade identified by reference number A/CN. 9/264." While RA 9285 was passed only in 2004, it nonetheless applies in the instant case since it is a procedural law which has a retroactive effect. Likewise, KOGIES filed its application for arbitration before the KCAB on July 1, 1998 and it is still pending because no arbitral award has yet been rendered. Thus, RA 9285 is applicable to the instant case. Well-settled is the rule that procedural laws are construed to be applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, and are deemed retroactive in that sense and to that extent. As a general rule, the retroactive application of procedural laws does not violate any personal rights because no vested right has yet attached nor arisen from them.42 Among the pertinent features of RA 9285 applying and incorporating the UNCITRAL Model Law are the following: (1) The RTC must refer to arbitration in proper cases

Under Sec. 24, the RTC does not have jurisdiction over disputes that are properly the subject of arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause, and mandates the referral to arbitration in such cases, thus: SEC. 24. Referral to Arbitration.A court before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject matter of an arbitration agreement shall, if at least one party so requests not later than the pre-trial conference, or upon the request of both parties thereafter, refer the parties to arbitration unless it finds that the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. (2) Foreign arbitral awards must be confirmed by the RTC Foreign arbitral awards while mutually stipulated by the parties in the arbitration clause to be final and binding are not immediately enforceable or cannot be implemented immediately. Sec. 3543 of the UNCITRAL Model Law stipulates the requirement for the arbitral award to be recognized by a competent court for enforcement, which court under Sec. 36 of the UNCITRAL Model Law may refuse recognition or enforcement on the grounds provided for. RA 9285 incorporated these provisos to Secs. 42, 43, and 44 relative to Secs. 47 and 48, thus: SEC. 42. Application of the New York Convention.The New York Convention shall govern the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards covered by said Convention. The recognition and enforcement of such arbitral awards shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court in accordance with the rules of procedure to be promulgated by the Supreme Court. Said procedural rules shall provide that the party relying on the award or applying for its enforcement shall file with the court the original or authenticated copy of the award and the arbitration agreement. If the award or agreement is not made in any of the official languages, the party shall supply a duly certified translation thereof into any of such languages. The applicant shall establish that the country in which foreign arbitration award was made in party to the New York Convention. xxxx SEC. 43. Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Not Covered by the New York Convention.The recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards not covered by the New York Convention shall be done in accordance with procedural rules to be promulgated by the Supreme Court. The Court may, on grounds of comity and reciprocity, recognize and enforce a non-convention award as a convention award.

92 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

SEC. 44. Foreign Arbitral Award Not Foreign Judgment.A foreign arbitral award when confirmed by a court of a foreign country, shall be recognized and enforced as a foreign arbitral award and not as a judgment of a foreign court. A foreign arbitral award, when confirmed by the Regional Trial Court, shall be enforced in the same manner as final and executory decisions of courts of law of the Philippines xxxx SEC. 47. Venue and Jurisdiction.Proceedings for recognition and enforcement of an arbitration agreement or for vacations, setting aside, correction or modification of an arbitral award, and any application with a court for arbitration assistance and supervision shall be deemed as special proceedings and shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court (i) where arbitration proceedings are conducted; (ii) where the asset to be attached or levied upon, or the act to be enjoined is located; (iii) where any of the parties to the dispute resides or has his place of business; or (iv) in the National Judicial Capital Region, at the option of the applicant. SEC. 48. Notice of Proceeding to Parties.In a special proceeding for recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, the Court shall send notice to the parties at their address of record in the arbitration, or if any part cannot be served notice at such address, at such partys last known address. The notice shall be sent al least fifteen (15) days before the date set for the initial hearing of the application. It is now clear that foreign arbitral awards when confirmed by the RTC are deemed not as a judgment of a foreign court but as a foreign arbitral award, and when confirmed, are enforced as final and executory decisions of our courts of law. Thus, it can be gleaned that the concept of a final and binding arbitral award is similar to judgments or awards given by some of our quasi-judicial bodies, like the National Labor Relations Commission and Mines Adjudication Board, whose final judgments are stipulated to be final and binding, but not immediately executory in the sense that they may still be judicially reviewed, upon the instance of any party. Therefore, the final foreign arbitral awards are similarly situated in that they need first to be confirmed by the RTC. (3) The RTC has jurisdiction to review foreign arbitral awards Sec. 42 in relation to Sec. 45 of RA 9285 designated and vested the RTC with specific authority and jurisdiction to set aside, reject, or vacate a foreign arbitral award on grounds provided under Art. 34(2) of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Secs. 42 and 45 provide: SEC. 42. Application of the New York Convention.The New York Convention shall govern the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards covered by said Convention.

The recognition and enforcement of such arbitral awards shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court in accordance with the rules of procedure to be promulgated by the Supreme Court. Said procedural rules shall provide that the party relying on the award or applying for its enforcement shall file with the court the original or authenticated copy of the award and the arbitration agreement. If the award or agreement is not made in any of the official languages, the party shall supply a duly certified translation thereof into any of such languages. The applicant shall establish that the country in which foreign arbitration award was made is party to the New York Convention. If the application for rejection or suspension of enforcement of an award has been made, the Regional Trial Court may, if it considers it proper, vacate its decision and may also, on the application of the party claiming recognition or enforcement of the award, order the party to provide appropriate security. xxxx SEC. 45. Rejection of a Foreign Arbitral Award.A party to a foreign arbitration proceeding may oppose an application for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award in accordance with the procedures and rules to be promulgated by the Supreme Court only on those grounds enumerated under Article V of the New York Convention. Any other ground raised shall be disregarded by the Regional Trial Court. Thus, while the RTC does not have jurisdiction over disputes governed by arbitration mutually agreed upon by the parties, still the foreign arbitral award is subject to judicial review by the RTC which can set aside, reject, or vacate it. In this sense, what this Court held in Chung Fu Industries (Phils.), Inc. relied upon by KOGIES is applicable insofar as the foreign arbitral awards, while final and binding, do not oust courts of jurisdiction since these arbitral awards are not absolute and without exceptions as they are still judicially reviewable. Chapter 7 of RA 9285 has made it clear that all arbitral awards, whether domestic or foreign, are subject to judicial review on specific grounds provided for. (4) Grounds for judicial review different in domestic and foreign arbitral awards The differences between a final arbitral award from an international or foreign arbitral tribunal and an award given by a local arbitral tribunal are the specific grounds or conditions that vest jurisdiction over our courts to review the awards. For foreign or international arbitral awards which must first be confirmed by the RTC, the grounds for setting aside, rejecting or vacating the award by the RTC are provided under Art. 34(2) of the UNCITRAL Model Law.

93 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

For final domestic arbitral awards, which also need confirmation by the RTC pursuant to Sec. 23 of RA 87644 and shall be recognized as final and executory decisions of the RTC,45 they may only be assailed before the RTC and vacated on the grounds provided under Sec. 25 of RA 876.46 (5) RTC decision of assailed foreign arbitral award appealable Sec. 46 of RA 9285 provides for an appeal before the CA as the remedy of an aggrieved party in cases where the RTC sets aside, rejects, vacates, modifies, or corrects an arbitral award, thus: SEC. 46. Appeal from Court Decision or Arbitral Awards.A decision of the Regional Trial Court confirming, vacating, setting aside, modifying or correcting an arbitral award may be appealed to the Court of Appeals in accordance with the rules and procedure to be promulgated by the Supreme Court. The losing party who appeals from the judgment of the court confirming an arbitral award shall be required by the appellate court to post a counterbond executed in favor of the prevailing party equal to the amount of the award in accordance with the rules to be promulgated by the Supreme Court. Thereafter, the CA decision may further be appealed or reviewed before this Court through a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. PGSMC has remedies to protect its interests Thus, based on the foregoing features of RA 9285, PGSMC must submit to the foreign arbitration as it bound itself through the subject contract. While it may have misgivings on the foreign arbitration done in Korea by the KCAB, it has available remedies under RA 9285. Its interests are duly protected by the law which requires that the arbitral award that may be rendered by KCAB must be confirmed here by the RTC before it can be enforced. With our disquisition above, petitioner is correct in its contention that an arbitration clause, stipulating that the arbitral award is final and binding, does not oust our courts of jurisdiction as the international arbitral award, the award of which is not absolute and without exceptions, is still judicially reviewable under certain conditions provided for by the UNCITRAL Model Law on ICA as applied and incorporated in RA 9285. Finally, it must be noted that there is nothing in the subject Contract which provides that the parties may dispense with the arbitration clause. Unilateral rescission improper and illegal

Having ruled that the arbitration clause of the subject contract is valid and binding on the parties, and not contrary to public policy; consequently, being bound to the contract of arbitration, a party may not unilaterally rescind or terminate the contract for whatever cause without first resorting to arbitration. What this Court held in University of the Philippines v. De Los Angeles47 and reiterated in succeeding cases,48 that the act of treating a contract as rescinded on account of infractions by the other contracting party is valid albeit provisional as it can be judicially assailed, is not applicable to the instant case on account of a valid stipulation on arbitration. Where an arbitration clause in a contract is availing, neither of the parties can unilaterally treat the contract as rescinded since whatever infractions or breaches by a party or differences arising from the contract must be brought first and resolved by arbitration, and not through an extrajudicial rescission or judicial action. The issues arising from the contract between PGSMC and KOGIES on whether the equipment and machineries delivered and installed were properly installed and operational in the plant in Carmona, Cavite; the ownership of equipment and payment of the contract price; and whether there was substantial compliance by KOGIES in the production of the samples, given the alleged fact that PGSMC could not supply the raw materials required to produce the sample LPG cylinders, are matters proper for arbitration. Indeed, we note that on July 1, 1998, KOGIES instituted an Application for Arbitration before the KCAB in Seoul, Korea pursuant to Art. 15 of the Contract as amended. Thus, it is incumbent upon PGSMC to abide by its commitment to arbitrate. Corollarily, the trial court gravely abused its discretion in granting PGSMCs Motion for Inspection of Things on September 21, 1998, as the subject matter of the motion is under the primary jurisdiction of the mutually agreed arbitral body, the KCAB in Korea. In addition, whatever findings and conclusions made by the RTC Branch Sheriff from the inspection made on October 28, 1998, as ordered by the trial court on October 19, 1998, is of no worth as said Sheriff is not technically competent to ascertain the actual status of the equipment and machineries as installed in the plant. For these reasons, the September 21, 1998 and October 19, 1998 RTC Orders pertaining to the grant of the inspection of the equipment and machineries have to be recalled and nullified. Issue on ownership of plant proper for arbitration Petitioner assails the CA ruling that the issue petitioner raised on whether the total contract price of USD 1,530,000 was for the whole plant and its installation is beyond the ambit of a Petition for Certiorari. Petitioners position is untenable.

94 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

It is settled that questions of fact cannot be raised in an original action for certiorari. 49 Whether or not there was full payment for the machineries and equipment and installation is indeed a factual issue prohibited by Rule 65. However, what appears to constitute a grave abuse of discretion is the order of the RTC in resolving the issue on the ownership of the plant when it is the arbitral body (KCAB) and not the RTC which has jurisdiction and authority over the said issue. The RTCs determination of such factual issue constitutes grave abuse of discretion and must be reversed and set aside. RTC has interim jurisdiction to protect the rights of the parties Anent the July 23, 1998 Order denying the issuance of the injunctive writ paving the way for PGSMC to dismantle and transfer the equipment and machineries, we find it to be in order considering the factual milieu of the instant case. Firstly, while the issue of the proper installation of the equipment and machineries might well be under the primary jurisdiction of the arbitral body to decide, yet the RTC under Sec. 28 of RA 9285 has jurisdiction to hear and grant interim measures to protect vested rights of the parties. Sec. 28 pertinently provides: SEC. 28. Grant of interim Measure of Protection.(a) It is not incompatible with an arbitration agreement for a party to request, before constitution of the tribunal, from a Court to grant such measure. After constitution of the arbitral tribunal and during arbitral proceedings, a request for an interim measure of protection, or modification thereof, may be made with the arbitral or to the extent that the arbitral tribunal has no power to act or is unable to act effectivity, the request may be made with the Court. The arbitral tribunal is deemed constituted when the sole arbitrator or the third arbitrator, who has been nominated, has accepted the nomination and written communication of said nomination and acceptance has been received by the party making the request. (b) The following rules on interim or provisional relief shall be observed: Any party may request that provisional relief be granted against the adverse party. Such relief may be granted: (i) to prevent irreparable loss or injury; (ii) to provide security for the performance of any obligation; (iii) to produce or preserve any evidence; or (iv) to compel any other appropriate act or omission.

(c) The order granting provisional relief may be conditioned upon the provision of security or any act or omission specified in the order. (d) Interim or provisional relief is requested by written application transmitted by reasonable means to the Court or arbitral tribunal as the case may be and the party against whom the relief is sought, describing in appropriate detail the precise relief, the party against whom the relief is requested, the grounds for the relief, and the evidence supporting the request. (e) The order shall be binding upon the parties. (f) Either party may apply with the Court for assistance in implementing or enforcing an interim measure ordered by an arbitral tribunal. (g) A party who does not comply with the order shall be liable for all damages resulting from noncompliance, including all expenses, and reasonable attorney's fees, paid in obtaining the orders judicial enforcement. (Emphasis ours.) Art. 17(2) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on ICA defines an "interim measure" of protection as: Article 17. Power of arbitral tribunal to order interim measures xxx xxx xxx (2) An interim measure is any temporary measure, whether in the form of an award or in another form, by which, at any time prior to the issuance of the award by which the dispute is finally decided, the arbitral tribunal orders a party to: (a) Maintain or restore the status quo pending determination of the dispute; (b) Take action that would prevent, or refrain from taking action that is likely to cause, current or imminent harm or prejudice to the arbitral process itself; (c) Provide a means of preserving assets out of which a subsequent award may be satisfied; or (d) Preserve evidence that may be relevant and material to the resolution of the dispute. Art. 17 J of UNCITRAL Model Law on ICA also grants courts power and jurisdiction to issue interim measures: Article 17 J. Court-ordered interim measures A court shall have the same power of issuing an interim measure in relation to arbitration proceedings, irrespective of whether their place is in the territory of this

95 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

State, as it has in relation to proceedings in courts. The court shall exercise such power in accordance with its own procedures in consideration of the specific features of international arbitration. In the recent 2006 case of Transfield Philippines, Inc. v. Luzon Hydro Corporation, we were explicit that even "the pendency of an arbitral proceeding does not foreclose resort to the courts for provisional reliefs." We explicated this way: As a fundamental point, the pendency of arbitral proceedings does not foreclose resort to the courts for provisional reliefs. The Rules of the ICC, which governs the parties arbitral dispute, allows the application of a party to a judicial authority for interim or conservatory measures. Likewise, Section 14 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 876 (The Arbitration Law) recognizes the rights of any party to petition the court to take measures to safeguard and/or conserve any matter which is the subject of the dispute in arbitration. In addition, R.A. 9285, otherwise known as the "Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 2004," allows the filing of provisional or interim measures with the regular courts whenever the arbitral tribunal has no power to act or to act effectively.50 It is thus beyond cavil that the RTC has authority and jurisdiction to grant interim measures of protection. Secondly, considering that the equipment and machineries are in the possession of PGSMC, it has the right to protect and preserve the equipment and machineries in the best way it can. Considering that the LPG plant was non-operational, PGSMC has the right to dismantle and transfer the equipment and machineries either for their protection and preservation or for the better way to make good use of them which is ineluctably within the management discretion of PGSMC. Thirdly, and of greater import is the reason that maintaining the equipment and machineries in Worths property is not to the best interest of PGSMC due to the prohibitive rent while the LPG plant as set-up is not operational. PGSMC was losing PhP322,560 as monthly rentals or PhP3.87M for 1998 alone without considering the 10% annual rent increment in maintaining the plant. Fourthly, and corollarily, while the KCAB can rule on motions or petitions relating to the preservation or transfer of the equipment and machineries as an interim measure, yet on hindsight, the July 23, 1998 Order of the RTC allowing the transfer of the equipment and machineries given the non-recognition by the lower courts of the arbitral clause, has accorded an interim measure of protection to PGSMC which would otherwise been irreparably damaged. Fifth, KOGIES is not unjustly prejudiced as it has already been paid a substantial amount based on the contract. Moreover, KOGIES is amply protected by the arbitral action it has

instituted before the KCAB, the award of which can be enforced in our jurisdiction through the RTC. Besides, by our decision, PGSMC is compelled to submit to arbitration pursuant to the valid arbitration clause of its contract with KOGIES. PGSMC to preserve the subject equipment and machineries Finally, while PGSMC may have been granted the right to dismantle and transfer the subject equipment and machineries, it does not have the right to convey or dispose of the same considering the pending arbitral proceedings to settle the differences of the parties. PGSMC therefore must preserve and maintain the subject equipment and machineries with the diligence of a good father of a family 51 until final resolution of the arbitral proceedings and enforcement of the award, if any. WHEREFORE, this petition is PARTLY GRANTED, in that: (1) The May 30, 2000 CA Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 49249 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE; (2) The September 21, 1998 and October 19, 1998 RTC Orders in Civil Case No. 98-117 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE; (3) The parties are hereby ORDERED to submit themselves to the arbitration of their dispute and differences arising from the subject Contract before the KCAB; and (4) PGSMC is hereby ALLOWED to dismantle and transfer the equipment and machineries, if it had not done so, and ORDERED to preserve and maintain them until the finality of whatever arbitral award is given in the arbitration proceedings. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Quisumbing,Chairperson Carpio, Carpio-Morales, Tinga, JJ., concur.

96 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 151242 June 15, 2005

$ 844,674.07 171,120.53 529,189.80 $1,544,984.40 $ 77,249.22 TOTAL .. Conversion rate to peso TOTAL .. $1,622,233.62 x 43_ P69,756,000.00 (roundoff)

PROTON PILIPINAS CORPORATION, AUTOMOTIVE PHILIPPINES, ASEA ONE CORPORATION and AUTOCORP, Petitioners, vs. BANQUE NATIONALE DE PARIS,1 Respondent. DECISION CARPIO MORALES, J.: It appears that sometime in 1995, petitioner Proton Pilipinas Corporation (Proton) availed of the credit facilities of herein respondent, Banque Nationale de Paris (BNP). To guarantee the payment of its obligation, its co-petitioners Automotive Corporation Philippines (Automotive), Asea One Corporation (Asea) and Autocorp Group (Autocorp) executed a corporate guarantee2 to the extent of US$2,000,000.00. BNP and Proton subsequently entered into three trust receipt agreements dated June 4, 1996, 3 January 14, 1997,4 and April 24, 1997.5 Under the terms of the trust receipt agreements, Proton would receive imported passenger motor vehicles and hold them in trust for BNP. Proton would be free to sell the vehicles subject to the condition that it would deliver the proceeds of the sale to BNP, to be applied to its obligations to it. In case the vehicles are not sold, Proton would return them to BNP, together with all the accompanying documents of title. Allegedly, Proton failed to deliver the proceeds of the sale and return the unsold motor vehicles. Pursuant to the corporate guarantee, BNP demanded from Automotive, Asea and Autocorp the payment of the amount of US$1,544,984.406 representing Proton's total outstanding obligations. These guarantors refused to pay, however. Hence, BNP filed on September 7, 1998 before the Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC) a complaint against petitioners praying that they be ordered to pay (1) US$1,544,984.40 plus accrued interest and other related charges thereon subsequent to August 15, 1998 until fully paid and (2) an amount equivalent to 5% of all sums due from petitioners as attorney's fees. The Makati RTC Clerk of Court assessed the docket fees which BNP paid at P352,116.30 7 which was computed as follows:8

Computation based on Rule 141:

COURT P 69,756,000.00 - 150,000.00 69,606,000.00 x .002 139,212.00 + 150.00 P 139,362.00

JDF P 69.606.000.00 x .003 208,818.00 + 450.00 P 209,268.00

97 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

LEGAL : P139,362.00 + 209,268.00 P348,630.00 P 139,362.00 + 209,268.00 3,486.00 P 352,116.30 - Total fees paid by the plaintiff To the complaint, the defendants-herein petitioners filed on October 12, 1998 a Motion to Dismiss9 on the ground that BNP failed to pay the correct docket fees to thus prevent the trial court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case.10 As additional ground, petitioners raised prematurity of the complaint, BNP not having priorly sent any demand letter.11 By Order12 of August 3, 1999, Branch 148 of the Makati RTC denied petitioners' Motion to Dismiss, viz: Resolving the first ground relied upon by the defendant, this court believes and so hold that the docket fees were properly paid. It is the Office of the Clerk of Court of this station that computes the correct docket fees, and it is their duty to assess the docket fees correctly, which they did.1avvphi1.zw+ Even granting arguendo that the docket fees were not properly paid, the court cannot just dismiss the case. The Court has not yet ordered (and it will not in this case) to pay the correct docket fees, thus the Motion to dismiss is premature, aside from being without any legal basis. As held in the case of National Steel Corporation vs. CA, G.R. No. 123215, February 2, 1999, the Supreme Court said: xxx Although the payment of the proper docket fees is a jurisdictional requirement, the trial court may allow the plaintiff in an action to pay the same within a reasonable time within the expiration of applicable prescription or reglementary period. If the plaintiff x 1% = P3,486.30

fails to comply with this requirement, the defendant should timely raise the issue of jurisdiction or else he would be considered in estoppel. In the latter case, the balance between appropriate docket fees and the amount actually paid by the plaintiff will be considered a lien or (sic) any award he may obtain in his favor. As to the second ground relied upon by the defendants, in that a review of all annexes to the complaint of the plaintiff reveals that there is not a single formal demand letter for defendants to fulfill the terms and conditions of the three (3) trust agreements. In this regard, the court cannot sustain the submission of defendant. As correctly pointed out by the plaintiff, failure to make a formal demand for the debtor to pay the plaintiff is not among the legal grounds for the dismissal of the case. Anyway, in the appreciation of the court, this is simply evidentiary. xxx WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the Motion to Dismiss interposed by the defendants is hereby DENIED.13 (Underscoring supplied) Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration14 of the denial of their Motion to Dismiss, but it was denied by the trial court by Order15 of October 3, 2000. Petitioners thereupon brought the case on certiorari and mandamus16 to the Court of Appeals which, by Decision17 of July 25, 2001, denied it in this wise: Section 7(a) of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court excludes interest accruing from the principal amount being claimed in the pleading in the computation of the prescribed filing fees. The complaint was submitted for the computation of the filing fee to the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City which made an assessment that respondent paid accordingly. What the Office of the Clerk of Court did and the ruling of the respondent Judge find support in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ng Soon vs. Alday and Tacay vs. RTC of Tagum, Davao del Norte. In the latter case, the Supreme Court explicitly ruled that "where the action is purely for recovery of money or damages, the docket fees are assessed on the basis of the aggregate amount claimed, exclusive only of interests and costs." Assuming arguendo that the correct filing fees was not made, the rule is that the court may allow a reasonable time for the payment of the prescribed fees, or the balance thereof, and upon such payment, the defect is cured and the court may properly take cognizance of the action unless in the meantime prescription has set in and consequently barred the right of action. Here respondent Judge did not make any finding, and rightly so, that the filing fee paid by private respondent was insufficient.

98 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

On the issue of the correct dollar-peso rate of exchange, the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Makati pegged it at P 43.21 to US$1. In the absence of any office guide of the rate of exchange which said court functionary was duty bound to follow, the rate he applied is presumptively correct. Respondent Judge correctly ruled that the matter of demand letter is evidentiary and does not form part of the required allegations in a complaint. Section 1, Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure pertinently provides: "Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form, a plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defense, as the case may be, omitted the statement of mere evidentiary facts." Judging from the allegations of the complaint particularly paragraphs 6, 12, 18, and 23 where allegations of imputed demands were made upon the defendants to fulfill their respective obligations, annexing the demand letters for the purpose of putting up a sufficient cause of action is not required. In fine, respondent Judge committed no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction to warrant certiorari and mandamus.18 (Underscoring supplied) Their Motion for Reconsideration19 having been denied by the Court of Appeals,20 petitioners filed the present petition for review on certiorari21 and pray for the following reliefs: WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court to grant the instant petition by REVERSING and SETTING ASIDE the questioned Decision of July 25, 2001 and the Resolution of December 18, 2001 for being contrary to law, to Administrative Circular No. 11-94 and Circular No. 7 and instead direct the court a quo to require Private Respondent Banque to pay the correct docket fee pursuant to the correct exchange rate of the dollar to the peso on September 7, 1998 and to quantify its claims for interests on the principal obligations in the first, second and third causes of actions in its Complaint in Civil Case No. 98-2180.22 (Underscoring supplied) Citing Administrative Circular No. 11-94,23 petitioners argue that BNP failed to pay the correct docket fees as the said circular provides that in the assessment thereof, interest claimed should be included. There being an underpayment of the docket fees, petitioners conclude, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case. Additionally, petitioners point out that the clerk of court, in converting BNP's claims from US dollars to Philippine pesos, applied the wrong exchange rate of US $1 = P43.00, the exchange rate on September 7, 1998 when the complaint was filed having been pegged at US $1 = P43.21. Thus, by petitioners' computation, BNP's claim as of August 15, 1998 was actually P70,096,714.72,24 not P69,756,045.66.

Furthermore, petitioners submit that pursuant to Supreme Court Circular No. 7, 25 the complaint should have been dismissed for failure to specify the amount of interest in the prayer. Circular No. 7 reads: TO: JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, SHARI'A DISTRICT COURTS;AND THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES SUBJECT: ALL COMPLAINTS MUST SPECIFY AMOUNT OF DAMAGES SOUGHT NOT ONLY IN THE BODY OF THE PLEADING, BUT ALSO IN THE PRAYER IN ORDER TO BE ACCEPTED AND ADMITTED FOR FILING. THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES SO SPECIFIED IN THE COMPLAINT SHALL BE THE BASIS FOR ASSESSING THE AMOUNT OF THE FILING FEES. In Manchester Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, No. L-75919, May 7, 1987, 149 SCRA 562, this Court condemned the practice of counsel who in filing the original complaint omitted from the prayer any specification of the amount of damages although the amount of over P78 million is alleged in the body of the complaint. This Court observed that "(T)his is clearly intended for no other purpose than to evade the payment of the correct filing fees if not to mislead the docket clerk, in the assessment of the filing fee. This fraudulent practice was compounded when, even as this Court had taken cognizance of the anomaly and ordered an investigation, petitioner through another counsel filed an amended complaint, deleting all mention of the amount of damages being asked for in the body of the complaint. xxx" For the guidance of all concerned, the WARNING given by the court in the afore-cited case is reproduced hereunder: "The Court serves warning that it will take drastic action upon a repetition of this unethical practice. To put a stop to this irregularity, henceforth all complaints, petitions, answers and other similar pleadings should specify the amount of damages being prayed for not only in the body of the pleading but also in the prayer, and said damages shall be considered in the assessment of the filing fees in any case. Any pleading that fails to comply with this requirement shall not be accepted nor admitted, or shall otherwise be expunged from the record. The Court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee. An amendment of the complaint or similar pleading will not thereby vest jurisdiction in the Court, much less the payment of the docket fee based on the amount

99 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

sought in the amended pleading. The ruling in the Magaspi case (115 SCRA 193) in so far as it is inconsistent with this pronouncement is overturned and reversed." Strict compliance with this Circular is hereby enjoined. Let this be circularized to all the courts hereinabove named and to the President and Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, which is hereby directed to disseminate this Circular to all its members. March 24, 1988. (Sgd). CLAUDIO TEEHANKEE Chief Justice (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) On the other hand, respondent maintains that it had paid the filing fee which was assessed by the clerk of court, and that there was no violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 7 because the amount of damages was clearly specified in the prayer, to wit: 2. On the FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (c) Defendant PROTON be ordered to pay the sum of (i) US DOLLARS EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY FOUR THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SEVENTY FOUR AND SEVEN CENTS (US$ 844,674.07), plus accrued interests and other related charges thereon subsequent to August 15, 1998, until fully paid; and (ii) an amount equivalent to 5% of all sums due from said Defendant, as and for attorney's fees; 3. On the SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (d) Defendant PROTON be ordered to pay the sum of (i) US DOLLARS ONE HUNDRED TWENTY AND FIFTY THREE CENTS (US$171,120.53), plus accrued interests and other related charges thereon subsequent to August 15, 1998 until fully paid; and (ii) an amount equivalent to 5% of all sums due from said Defendant, as and for attorney's fees; 4. On the THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (e) Defendant PROTON be ordered to pay the sum of (i) US DOLLARS FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY NINE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE AND EIGHTY CENTS (US$529,189.80), plus accrued interests and other related charges thereon subsequent to August 15, 1998 until fully paid; and (ii) an amount equivalent to 5% or all sums due from said Defendant, as and for attorney's fees; 5. On ALL THE CAUSES OF ACTION -

Defendants AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION PHILIPPINES, ASEA ONE CORPORATION and AUTOCORP GROUP to be ordered to pay Plaintiff BNP the aggregate sum of (i) US DOLLARS ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED FORTY FOUR THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED EIGHTY FOUR AND FORTY CENTS (US$1,544,984.40) (First through Third Causes of Action), plus accrued interest and other related charges thereon subsequent to August 15, 1998 until fully paid; and (ii) an amount equivalent to 5% of all sums due from said Defendants, as and for attorney's fees.26 Moreover, respondent posits that the amount of US$1,544,984.40 represents not only the principal but also interest and other related charges which had accrued as of August 15, 1998. Respondent goes even further by suggesting that in light of Tacay v. Regional Trial Court of Tagum, Davao del Norte27 where the Supreme Court held, Where the action is purely for the recovery of money or damages, the docket fees are assessed on the basis of the aggregate amount claimed, exclusive only of interests and costs.28 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied), it made an overpayment. When Tacay was decided in 1989, the pertinent rule applicable was Section 5 (a) of Rule 141 which provided for the following: SEC. 5. Clerks of Regional Trial Courts. - (a) For filing an action or proceeding, or a permissive counter-claim or cross-claim not arising out of the same transaction subject of the complaint, a third-party complaint and a complaint in intervention and for all services in the same, if the sum claimed, exclusive of interest, of the value of the property in litigation, or the value of the estate, is: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Less than P 5,000.00 . P 5,000.00 or more but less than P 10,000.00 P 10,000.00 or more but less than P 20,000.00 .. P 20,000.00 or more but less than P 40,000.00 .. P 40,000.00 or more but less than P 60,000.00 .. P 60,000.00 or more but less than P 80,000.00 . P 32.00 48.00 64.00 80.00 120.00 160.00

100 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

7. 8. 9.

P 80,000.00 or more but less than P 150,000.00 And for each P 1,000.00 in excess of P 150,000.00 ..... When the value of the case cannot be estimated

200.00 4.00 400.00 xxx

2. P 100,000.00, or more but not more than P 150,000.00 600.00 3. For each P 1,000.00 in excess of P 150,000.00 . 5.00

Sec. 8. Clerks of Metropolitan and Municipal Trial Courts 10. When the case does not concern property (naturalization, adoption, legal separation, etc.) ..... 64.00 11. In forcible entry and illegal detainer cases appealed from inferior courts . 40.00 If the case concerns real estate, the assessed value thereof shall be considered in computing the fees. In case the value of the property or estate or the sum claim is less or more in accordance with the appraisal of the court, the difference of fees shall be refunded or paid as the case may be. When the complaint in this case was filed in 1998, however, as correctly pointed out by petitioners, Rule 141 had been amended by Administrative Circular No. 11-9429 which provides: BY RESOLUTION OF THE COURT, DATED JUNE 28, 1994, PURSUANT TO SECTION 5 (5) OF ARTICLE VIII OF THE CONSTITUTION, RULE 141, SECTION 7 (a) AND (d), and SECTION 8 (a) and (b) OF THE RULES OF COURT ARE HEREBY AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: RULE LEGAL FEES xxx Sec. 7. Clerks of Regional Trial Courts (a) For filing an action or a permissive counterclaim or money claim against an estate not based on judgment, or for filing with leave of court a third-party, fourth-party, etc. complaint, or a complaint in intervention, and for all clerical services in the same, if the total sum claimed, inclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, or the stated value of the property in litigation, is: 1. Not more than P 100,000.00 P 400.00 141 (a) For each civil action or proceeding, where the value of the subject matter involved, or the amount of the demand, inclusive of interest, damages or whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, is: 1. Not more than P 20,000.00 ... 2. More than P 20,000.00 but not more than P 100,000.00 . P 120.00 400.00

3. More than P 100,000.00 but not more than P 200,000.00 850.00 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) The clerk of court should thus have assessed the filing fee by taking into consideration "the total sum claimed, inclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, or the stated value of the property in litigation." Respondent's and the Court of Appeals' reliance then on Tacay was not in order. Neither was, for the same reason, the Court of Appeals' reliance on the 1989 case of Ng Soon v. Alday,30 where this Court held: The failure to state the rate of interest demanded was not fatal not only because it is the Courts which ultimately fix the same, but also because Rule 141, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court, itemizing the filing fees, speaks of "the sum claimed, exclusive of interest." This clearly implies that the specification of the interest rate is not that indispensable. Factually, therefore, not everything was left to "guesswork" as respondent Judge has opined. The sums claimed were ascertainable, sufficient enough to allow a computation pursuant to Rule 141, section 5(a). Furthermore, contrary to the position taken by respondent Judge, the amounts claimed need not be initially stated with mathematical precision. The same Rule 141, section 5(a) (3rd paragraph), allows an appraisal "more or less."31 Thus:

101 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

"In case the value of the property or estate or the sum claimed is less or more in accordance with the appraisal of the court, the difference of fee shall be refunded or paid as the case may be." In other words, a final determination is still to be made by the Court, and the fees ultimately found to be payable will either be additionally paid by the party concerned or refunded to him, as the case may be. The above provision clearly allows an initial payment of the filing fees corresponding to the estimated amount of the claim subject to adjustment as to what later may be proved. ". . . there is merit in petitioner's claim that the third paragraph of Rule 141, Section 5(a) clearly contemplates a situation where an amount is alleged or claimed in the complaint but is less or more than what is later proved. If what is proved is less than what was claimed, then a refund will be made; if more, additional fees will be exacted. Otherwise stated, what is subject to adjustment is the difference in the fee and not the whole amount" (Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp., et als., vs. Court of Appeals, et als., G.R. No. 76119, April 10, 1989).32 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Respecting the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the clerk of court did not err when he applied the exchange rate of US $1 = P43.00 "[i]n the absence of any office guide of the rate of exchange which said court functionary was duty bound to follow,[hence,] the rate he applied is presumptively correct," the same does not lie. The presumption of regularity of the clerk of court's application of the exchange rate is not conclusive. 33 It is disputable.34 As such, the presumption may be overturned by the requisite rebutting evidence.35 In the case at bar, petitioners have adequately proven with documentary evidence36 that the exchange rate when the complaint was filed on September 7, 1998 was US $1 = P43.21. In fine, the docket fees paid by respondent were insufficient. With respect to petitioner's argument that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case in light of the insufficient docket fees, the same does not lie. True, in Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals,37 this Court held that the court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fees,38 hence, it concluded that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case. It bears emphasis, however, that the ruling in Manchester was clarified in Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. (SIOL) v. Asuncion39 when this Court held that in the former there was clearly an effort to defraud the government in avoiding to pay the correct docket fees, whereas in the latter the plaintiff demonstrated his willingness to abide by paying the additional fees as required.

The principle in Manchester could very well be applied in the present case. The pattern and the intent to defraud the government of the docket fee due it is obvious not only in the filing of the original complaint but also in the filing of the second amended complaint. However, in Manchester, petitioner did not pay any additional docket fee until the case was decided by this Court on May 7, 1987. Thus, in Manchester, due to the fraud committed on the government, this Court held that the court a quo did not acquire jurisdiction over the case and that the amended complaint could not have been admitted inasmuch as the original complaint was null and void. In the present case, a more liberal interpretation of the rules is called for considering that, unlike Manchester, private respondent demonstrated his willingness to abide by the rules by paying the additional docket fees as required. The promulgation of the decision in Manchester must have had that sobering influence on private respondent who thus paid the additional docket fee as ordered by the respondent court. It triggered his change of stance by manifesting his willingness to pay such additional docket fee as may be ordered. Nevertheless, petitioners contend that the docket fee that was paid is still insufficient considering the total amount of the claim. This is a matter which the clerk of court of the lower court and/or his duly authorized docket clerk or clerk in charge should determine and, thereafter, if any amount is found due, he must require the private respondent to pay the same. Thus, the Court rules as follows: 1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject-matter or nature of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. 2. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third-party claims and similar pleadings, which shall not be considered filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed therefor is paid. The court may also allow payment of said fee within a reasonable time but also in no case beyond its applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. 3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the appropriate pleading and payment of the prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or if specified the same has been left for determination by the court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on

102 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional fee.40 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) The ruling in Sun Insurance Office was echoed in the 2005 case of Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Hon. Achilles Melicor:41 Plainly, while the payment of the prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement, even its non-payment at the time of filing does not automatically cause the dismissal of the case, as long as the fee is paid within the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period, more so when the party involved demonstrates a willingness to abide by the rules prescribing such payment. Thus, when insufficient filing fees were initially paid by the plaintiffs and there was no intention to defraud the government, the Manchester rule does not apply. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations omitted) In the case at bar, respondent merely relied on the assessment made by the clerk of court which turned out to be incorrect. Under the circumstances, the clerk of court has the responsibility of reassessing what respondent must pay within the prescriptive period, failing which the complaint merits dismissal. Parenthetically, in the complaint, respondent prayed for "accrued interest subsequent to August 15, 1998 until fully paid." The complaint having been filed on September 7, 1998, respondent's claim includes the interest from August 16, 1998 until such date of filing. Respondent did not, however, pay the filing fee corresponding to its claim for interest from August 16, 1998 until the filing of the complaint on September 7, 1998. As priorly discussed, this is required under Rule 141, as amended by Administrative Circular No. 11-94, which was the rule applicable at the time. Thus, as the complaint currently stands, respondent cannot claim the interest from August 16, 1998 until September 7, 1998, unless respondent is allowed by motion to amend its complaint within a reasonable time and specify the precise amount of interest petitioners owe from August 16, 1998 to September 7, 199842 and pay the corresponding docket fee therefor. With respect to the interest accruing after the filing of the complaint, the same can only be determined after a final judgment has been handed down. Respondent cannot thus be made to pay the corresponding docket fee therefor. Pursuant, however, to Section 2, Rule 141, as amended by Administrative Circular No. 11-94, respondent should be made to pay additional fees which shall constitute a lien in the event the trial court adjudges that it is entitled to interest accruing after the filing of the complaint. Sec. 2. Fees as lien. - Where the court in its final judgment awards a claim not alleged, or a relief different or more than that claimed in the pleading, the party concerned shall

pay the additional fees which shall constitute a lien on the judgment in satisfaction of said lien. The clerk of court shall assess and collect the corresponding fees. In Ayala Corporation v. Madayag,43 in interpreting the third rule laid down in Sun Insurance regarding awards of claims not specified in the pleading, this Court held that the same refers only to damages arising after the filing of the complaint or similar pleading as to which the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment. The amount of any claim for damages, therefore, arising on or before the filing of the complaint or any pleading should be specified. While it is true that the determination of certain damages as exemplary or corrective damages is left to the sound discretion of the court, it is the duty of the parties claiming such damages to specify the amount sought on the basis of which the court may make a proper determination, and for the proper assessment of the appropriate docket fees. The exception contemplated as to claims not specified or to claims although specified are left for determination of the court is limited only to any damages that may arise after the filing of the complaint or similar pleading for then it will not be possible for the claimant to specify nor speculate as to the amount thereof.44 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; citation omitted)1avvphi1.zw+ WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED in part. The July 25, 2001 Decision and the December 18, 2001 Resolution of the Court Appeals are hereby MODIFIED. The Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City is ordered to reassess and determine the docket fees that should be paid by respondent, BNP, in accordance with the Decision of this Court, and direct respondent to pay the same within fifteen (15) days, provided the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period has not yet expired. Thereafter, the trial court is ordered to proceed with the case with utmost dispatch. SO ORDERED. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice

103 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 175914 February 10, 2009

Absolute Sale would be uniformly dated 2 January 2006, and state that petitioner sold to respondents Tan and Obiedo the parcels of land for the following purchase prices: TCT No. 38376 29918 38374 39232 39225 Purchase Price P 9,340,000.00 P 28,000,000.00 P 12,000,000.00 P 1,600,000.00 P 1,600,000.00

RUBY SHELTER BUILDERS AND REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. HON. PABLO C. FORMARAN III, Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court Branch 21, Naga City, as Pairing Judge for Regional Trial Court Branch 22, Formerly Presided By HON. NOVELITA VILLEGAS-LLAGUNO (Retired 01 May 2006), ROMEO Y. TAN, ROBERTO L. OBIEDO and ATTY. TOMAS A. REYES, Respondents. DECISION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking the reversal of the Decision1 dated 22 November 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 94800. The Court of Appeals, in its assailed Decision, affirmed the Order2 dated 24 March 2006 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 22, of Naga City, in Civil Case No. RTC-2006-0030, ordering petitioner Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty Development Corporation to pay additional docket/filing fees, computed based on Section 7(a) of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended. The present Petition arose from the following facts: Petitioner obtained a loan3 in the total amount of P95,700,620.00 from respondents Romeo Y. Tan (Tan) and Roberto L. Obiedo (Obiedo), secured by real estate mortgages over five parcels of land, all located in Triangulo, Naga City, covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) No. 38376,4 No. 29918,5 No. 38374,6 No. 39232,7 and No. 39225,8 issued by the Registry of Deeds for Naga City, in the name of petitioner. When petitioner was unable to pay the loan when it became due and demandable, respondents Tan and Obiedo agreed to an extension of the same. In a Memorandum of Agreement9 dated 17 March 2005, respondents Tan and Obiedo granted petitioner until 31 December 2005 to settle its indebtedness, and condoned the interests, penalties and surcharges accruing thereon from 1 October 2004 to 31 December 2005 which amounted to P74,678,647.00. The Memorandum of Agreement required, in turn, that petitioner execute simultaneously with the said Memorandum, "by way of dacion en pago," Deeds of Absolute Sale in favor of respondents Tan and Obiedo, covering the same parcels of land subject of the mortgages. The Deeds of

Petitioner could choose to pay off its indebtedness with individual or all five parcels of land; or it could redeem said properties by paying respondents Tan and Obiedo the following prices for the same, inclusive of interest and penalties: TCT No. 38376 29918 38374 39232 39225 Redemption Price P 25,328,939.00 P 35,660,800.00 P 28,477,600.00 P 6,233,381.00 P 6,233,381.00

In the event that petitioner is able to redeem any of the afore-mentioned parcels of land, the Deed of Absolute Sale covering the said property shall be nullified and have no force and effect; and respondents Tan and Obiedo shall then return the owners duplicate of the corresponding TCT to petitioner and also execute a Deed of Discharge of Mortgage. However, if petitioner is unable to redeem the parcels of land within the period agreed upon, respondents Tan and Obiedo could already present the Deeds of Absolute Sale covering the same to the Office of the Register of Deeds for Naga City so respondents Tan and Obiedo could acquire TCTs to the said properties in their names.

104 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

The Memorandum of Agreement further provided that should petitioner contest, judicially or otherwise, any act, transaction, or event related to or necessarily connected with the said Memorandum and the Deeds of Absolute Sale involving the five parcels of land, it would pay respondents Tan and Obiedo P10,000,000.00 as liquidated damages inclusive of costs and attorneys fees. Petitioner would likewise pay respondents Tan and Obiedo the condoned interests, surcharges and penalties.10 Finally, should a contest arise from the Memorandum of Agreement, Mr. Ruben Sia (Sia), President of petitioner corporation, personally assumes, jointly and severally with petitioner, the latters monetary obligation to respondent Tan and Obiedo. Respondent Atty. Tomas A. Reyes (Reyes) was the Notary Public who notarized the Memorandum of Agreement dated 17 March 2005 between respondent Tan and Obiedo, on one hand, and petitioner, on the other. Pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement, petitioner, represented by Mr. Sia, executed separate Deeds of Absolute Sale,11 over the five parcels of land, in favor of respondents Tan and Obiedo. On the blank spaces provided for in the said Deeds, somebody wrote the 3rd of January 2006 as the date of their execution. The Deeds were again notarized by respondent Atty. Reyes also on 3 January 2006. Without payment having been made by petitioner on 31 December 2005, respondents Tan and Obiedo presented the Deeds of Absolute Sale dated 3 January 2006 before the Register of Deeds of Naga City on 8 March 2006, as a result of which, they were able to secure TCTs over the five parcels of land in their names. On 16 March 2006, petitioner filed before the RTC a Complaint12 against respondents Tan, Obiedo, and Atty. Reyes, for declaration of nullity of deeds of sales and damages, with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order (TRO). The Complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 2006-0030. On the basis of the facts already recounted above, petitioner raised two causes of action in its Complaint. As for the first cause of action, petitioner alleged that as early as 27 December 2005, its President already wrote a letter informing respondents Tan and Obiedo of the intention of petitioner to pay its loan and requesting a meeting to compute the final amount due. The parties held meetings on 3 and 4 January 2006 but they failed to arrive at a mutually acceptable computation of the final amount of loan payable. Respondents Tan and Obiedo then refused the request of petitioner for further dialogues. Unbeknownst to petitioner, despite the ongoing meetings, respondents Tan and Obiedo, in evident bad faith, already had the pre-executed Deeds of Absolute Sale notarized on 3 January 2006 by respondent Atty. Reyes. Atty. Reyes, in connivance with respondents Tan and

Obiedo, falsely made it appear in the Deeds of Absolute Sale that Mr. Sia had personally acknowledged/ratified the said Deeds before Atty. Reyes. Asserting that the Deeds of Absolute Sale over the five parcels of land were executed merely as security for the payment of its loan to respondents Tan and Obiedo; that the Deeds of Absolute Sale, executed in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement, constituted pactum commisorium and as such, were null and void; and that the acknowledgment in the Deeds of Absolute Sale were falsified, petitioner averred: 13. That by reason of the fraudulent actions by the [herein respondents], [herein petitioner] is prejudiced and is now in danger of being deprived, physically and legally, of the mortgaged properties without benefit of legal processes such as the remedy of foreclosure and its attendant procedures, solemnities and remedies available to a mortgagor, while [petitioner] is desirous and willing to pay its obligation and have the mortgaged properties released.13 In support of its second cause of action, petitioner narrated in its Complaint that on 18 January 2006, respondents Tan and Obiedo forcibly took over, with the use of armed men, possession of the five parcels of land subject of the falsified Deeds of Absolute Sale and fenced the said properties with barbed wire. Beginning 3 March 2006, respondents Tan and Obiedo started demolishing some of the commercial spaces standing on the parcels of land in question which were being rented out by petitioner. Respondents Tan and Obiedo were also about to tear down a principal improvement on the properties consisting of a steel-and-concrete structure housing a motor vehicle terminal operated by petitioner. The actions of respondents Tan and Obiedo were to the damage and prejudice of petitioner and its tenants/lessees. Petitioner, alone, claimed to have suffered at least P300,000.00 in actual damages by reason of the physical invasion by respondents Tan and Obiedo and their armed goons of the five parcels of land. Ultimately, petitioners prayer in its Complaint reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that upon the filing of this complaint, a 72-hour temporary restraining order be forthwith issued ex parte: (a) Restraining [herein respondents] Tan and Obiedo, their agents, privies or representatives, from committing act/s tending to alienate the mortgaged properties from the [herein petitioner] pending the resolution of the case, including but not limited to the acts complained of in paragraph "14", above; (b) Restraining the Register of Deeds of Naga City from entertaining moves by the *respondents+ to have *petitioners+ certificates of title to the mortgaged properties

105 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

cancelled and changed/registered in *respondents+ Tans and Obiedos names, and/or released to them; (c) After notice and hearing, that a writ of preliminary injunction be issued imposing the same restraints indicated in the next preceding two paragraphs of this prayer; and (d) After trial, judgment be rendered: 1. Making the injunction permanent; 2. Declaring the provision in the Memorandum of Agreement requiring the [petitioner] to execute deed of sales (sic) in favor of the [respondents Tan and Obiedo] as dacion en pago in the event of non-payment of the debt as pactum commissorium; 3. Annulling the Deed[s] of Sale for TCT Nos. 29918, 38374, 38376, 39225 and 39232, all dated January 3, 2006, the same being in contravention of law; 4. Ordering the [respondents] jointly and solidarily to pay the [petitioner] actual damages of at least P300,000.00; attorneys fees in the amount of P100,000.00 plus P1,000.00 per court attendance of counsel as appearance fee; litigation expenses in the amount of at least P10,000.00 and exemplary damages in the amount of P300,000.00, plus the costs. [Petitioner] further prays for such other reliefs as may be proper, just and equitable under the premises.14 Upon filing its Complaint with the RTC on 16 March 2006, petitioner paid the sum of P13,644.25 for docket and other legal fees, as assessed by the Office of the Clerk of Court. The Clerk of Court initially considered Civil Case No. 2006-0030 as an action incapable of pecuniary estimation and computed the docket and other legal fees due thereon according to Section 7(b)(1), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. Only respondent Tan filed an Answer15 to the Complaint of petitioner. Respondent Tan did admit that meetings were held with Mr. Sia, as the representative of petitioner, to thresh out Mr. Sias charge that the computation by respondents Tan and Obiedo of the interests, surcharges and penalties accruing on the loan of petitioner was replete with errors and uncertainties. However, Mr. Sia failed to back up his accusation of errors and uncertainties and to present his own final computation of the amount due. Disappointed and exasperated, respondents Tan and Obiedo informed Mr. Sia that they had already asked respondent Atty. Reyes to come over to notarize the Deeds of Absolute Sale. Respondent Atty. Reyes asked Mr. Sia whether it was his signature appearing above his printed name on the Deeds of Absolute Sale, to which Mr. Sia replied yes. On 4 January 2006, Mr. Sia still failed to establish his claim of errors and uncertainties in the computation of the total amount which petitioner must pay

respondent Tan and Obiedo. Mr. Sia, instead, sought a nine-month extension for paying the loan obligation of petitioner and the reduction of the interest rate thereon to only one percent (1%) per month. Respondents Tan and Obiedo rejected both demands. Respondent Tan maintained that the Deeds of Absolute Sale were not executed merely as securities for the loan of petitioner. The Deeds of Absolute Sale over the five parcels of land were the consideration for the payment of the total indebtedness of petitioner to respondents Tan and Obiedo, and the condonation of the 15-month interest which already accrued on the loan, while providing petitioner with the golden opportunity to still redeem all or even portions of the properties covered by said Deeds. Unfortunately, petitioner failed to exercise its right to redeem any of the said properties. Belying that they forcibly took possession of the five parcels of land, respondent Tan alleged that it was Mr. Sia who, with the aid of armed men, on board a Sports Utility Vehicle and a truck, rammed into the personnel of respondents Tan and Obiedo causing melee and disturbance. Moreover, by the execution of the Deeds of Absolute Sale, the properties subject thereof were, ipso jure, delivered to respondents Tan and Obiedo. The demolition of the existing structures on the properties was nothing but an exercise of dominion by respondents Tan and Obiedo. Respondent Tan, thus, sought not just the dismissal of the Complaint of petitioner, but also the grant of his counterclaim. The prayer in his Answer is faithfully reproduced below: Wherefore, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that, after due hearing, judgment be rendered dismissing the complaint, and on the counterclaim, [herein petitioner] and Ruben Sia, be ordered to indemnify, jointly and severally [herein respondents Tan and Obiedo] the amounts of not less than P10,000,000.00 as liquidated damages and the further sum of not less than P500,000.00 as attorneys fees. In the alternative, and should it become necessary, it is hereby prayed that [petitioner] be ordered to pay herein [respondents Tan and Obiedo] the entire principal loan of P95,700,620.00, plus interests, surcharges and penalties computed from March 17, 2005 until the entire sum is fully paid, including the amount of P74,678,647.00 foregone interest covering the period from October 1, 2004 to December 31, 2005 or for a total of fifteen (15) months, plus incidental expenses as may be proved in court, in the event that Annexes "G" to "L" be nullified. Other relief and remedies as are just and equitable under the premises are hereby prayed for.16 Thereafter, respondent Tan filed before the RTC an Omnibus Motion in which he contended that Civil Case No. 2006-0030 involved real properties, the docket fees for which should be computed in accordance with Section 7(a), not Section 7(b)(1), of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC which took effect on 16

106 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

August 2004. Since petitioner did not pay the appropriate docket fees for Civil Case No. 2006-0030, the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the said case. Hence, respondent Tan asked the RTC to issue an order requiring petitioner to pay the correct and accurate docket fees pursuant to Section 7(a), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended; and should petitioner fail to do so, to deny and dismiss the prayer of petitioner for the annulment of the Deeds of Absolute Sale for having been executed in contravention of the law or of the Memorandum of Agreement as pactum commisorium. As required by the RTC, the parties submitted their Position Papers on the matter. On 24 March 2006, the RTC issued an Order17 granting respondent Tans Omnibus Motion. In holding that both petitioner and respondent Tan must pay docket fees in accordance with Section 7(a), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended, the RTC reasoned: It must be noted that under paragraph (b) 2. of the said Section 7, it is provided that QUIETING OF TITLE which is an action classified as beyond pecuniary estimation "shall be governed by paragraph (a)". Hence, the filing fee in an action for Declaration of Nullity of Deed which is also classified as beyond pecuniary estimation, must be computed based on the provision of Section 7(A) herein-above, in part, quoted. Since [herein respondent], Romeo Tan in his Answer has a counterclaim against the plaintiff, the former must likewise pay the necessary filling (sic) fees as provided for under Section 7 (A) of Amended Administrative Circular No. 35-2004 issued by the Supreme Court.18 Consequently, the RTC decreed on the matter of docket/filing fees: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the [herein petitioner] is hereby ordered to pay additional filing fee and the [herein respondent], Romeo Tan is also ordered to pay docket and filing fees on his counterclaim, both computed based on Section 7(a) of the Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 35-2004 within fifteen (15) days from receipt of this Order to the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Naga City and for the latter to compute and to collect the said fees accordingly.19 Petitioner moved20 for the partial reconsideration of the 24 March 2006 Order of the RTC, arguing that Civil Case No. 2006-0030 was principally for the annulment of the Deeds of Absolute Sale and, as such, incapable of pecuniary estimation. Petitioner submitted that the RTC erred in applying Section 7(a), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended, to petitioners first cause of action in its Complaint in Civil Case No. 20060030. In its Order21 dated 29 March 2006, the RTC refused to reconsider its 24 March 2006 Order, based on the following ratiocination:

Analyzing, the action herein pertains to real property, for as admitted by the [herein petitioner], "the deeds of sale in question pertain to real property" x x x. The Deeds of Sale subject of the instant case have already been transferred in the name of the [herein respondents Tan and Obiedo]. Compared with Quieting of Title, the latter action is brought when there is cloud on the title to real property or any interest therein or to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to the real property (Art. 476, Civil Code of the Philippines) and the plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to or interest in the real property which is the subject matter of the action (Art. 447, ibid.), and yet plaintiff in QUIETING OF TITLE is required to pay the fees in accordance with paragraph (a) of Section 7 of the said Amended Administrative Circular No. 35-2004, hence, with more reason that the [petitioner] who no longer has title to the real properties subject of the instant case must be required to pay the required fees in accordance with Section 7(a) of the Amended Administrative Circular No. 35-2004 afore-mentioned. Furthermore, while [petitioner] claims that the action for declaration of nullity of deed of sale and memorandum of agreement is one incapable of pecuniary estimation, however, as argued by the [respondent Tan], the issue as to how much filing and docket fees should be paid was never raised as an issue in the case of Russell vs. Vestil, 304 SCRA 738. xxxx WHEREFORE, the Motion for Partial Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.22 In a letter dated 19 April 2006, the RTC Clerk of Court computed, upon the request of counsel for the petitioner, the additional docket fees petitioner must pay for in Civil Case No. 2006-0030 as directed in the afore-mentioned RTC Orders. Per the computation of the RTC Clerk of Court, after excluding the amount petitioner previously paid on 16 March 2006, petitioner must still pay the amount of P720,392.60 as docket fees.23 Petitioner, however, had not yet conceded, and it filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals; the petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 94800. According to petitioner, the RTC24 acted with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, when it issued its Orders dated 24 March 2006 and 29 March 2006 mandating that the docket/filing fees for Civil Case No. 2006-0030, an action for annulment of deeds of sale, be assessed under Section 7(a), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended. If the Orders would not be revoked, corrected, or rectified, petitioner would suffer grave injustice and irreparable damage.

107 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

On 22 November 2006, the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision wherein it held that: Clearly, the petitioners complaint involves not only the annulment of the deeds of sale, but also the recovery of the real properties identified in the said documents. In other words, the objectives of the petitioner in filing the complaint were to cancel the deeds of sale and ultimately, to recover possession of the same. It is therefore a real action. Consequently, the additional docket fees that must be paid cannot be assessed in accordance with Section 7(b). As a real action, Section 7(a) must be applied in the assessment and payment of the proper docket fee. Resultantly, there is no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the court a quo. By grave abuse of discretion is meant capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, and mere abuse of discretion is not enough it must be grave. The abuse must be grave and patent, and it must be shown that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily and despotically.1avvphi1 Such a situation does not exist in this particular case. The evidence is insufficient to prove that the court a quo acted despotically in rendering the assailed orders. It acted properly and in accordance with law. Hence, error cannot be attributed to it.25 Hence, the fallo of the Decision of the appellate court reads: WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DENIED. The assailed Orders of the court a quo are AFFIRMED.26 Without seeking reconsideration of the foregoing Decision with the Court of Appeals, petitioner filed its Petition for Review on Certiorari before this Court, with a lone assignment of error, to wit: 18. The herein petitioner most respectfully submits that the Court of Appeals committed a grave and serious reversible error in affirming the assailed Orders of the Regional Trial Court which are clearly contrary to the pronouncement of this Honorable Court in the case of Spouses De Leon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104796, March 6, 1998, not to mention the fact that if the said judgment is allowed to stand and not rectified, the same would result in grave injustice and irreparable damage to herein petitioner in view of the prohibitive amount assessed as a consequence of said Orders. 27 In Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 28 the Court explicitly pronounced that "[t]he court acquires jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee." Hence, the payment of docket fees is not only mandatory, but also jurisdictional.

In Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. (SIOL) v. Asuncion,29 the Court laid down guidelines for the implementation of its previous pronouncement in Manchester under particular circumstances, to wit: 1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action. Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. 2. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third-party claims and similar pleadings, which shall not be considered filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed therefor is paid. The court may also allow payment of said fee within a reasonable time but also in no case beyond its applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. 3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the appropriate pleading and payment of the prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or if specified the same has been left for determination by the court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional fee. In the Petition at bar, the RTC found, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, that petitioner did not pay the correct amount of docket fees for Civil Case No. 2006-0030. According to both the trial and appellate courts, petitioner should pay docket fees in accordance with Section 7(a), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended. Consistent with the liberal tenor of Sun Insurance, the RTC, instead of dismissing outright petitioners Complaint in Civil Case No. 2006-0030, granted petitioner time to pay the additional docket fees. Despite the seeming munificence of the RTC, petitioner refused to pay the additional docket fees assessed against it, believing that it had already paid the correct amount before, pursuant to Section 7(b)(1), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended. Relevant to the present controversy are the following provisions under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC30 and Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 35-200431 : SEC. 7. Clerks of Regional Trial Courts. (a) For filing an action or a permissive OR COMPULSORY counterclaim, CROSS-CLAIM, or money claim against an estate not based on judgment, or for filing a third-party, fourthparty, etc. complaint, or a complaint-in-intervention, if the total sum claimed, INCLUSIVE OF INTERESTS, PENALTIES, SURCHARGES, DAMAGES OF WHATEVER KIND, AND

108 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

ATTORNEYS FEES, LITIGATIO NEXPENSES AND COSTS and/or in cases involving property, the FAIR MARKET value of the REAL property in litigation STATED IN THE CURRENT TAX DECLARATION OR CURRENT ZONAL VALUATION OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, WHICHEVER IS HIGHER, OR IF THERE IS NONE, THE STATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN LITIGATION OR THE VALUE OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY IN LITIGATION OR THE VALUE OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY IN LITIGATION AS ALLEGED BY THE CLAIMANT, is: [Table of fees omitted.] If the action involves both a money claim and relief pertaining to property, then THE fees will be charged on both the amounts claimed and value of property based on the formula prescribed in this paragraph a. (b) For filing: 1. Actions where the value of the subject matter cannot be estimated 2. Special civil actions, except judicial foreclosure of mortgage, EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS, PARTITION AND QUIETING OF TITLE which will 3. All other actions not involving property [Table of fees omitted.] The docket fees under Section 7(a), Rule 141, in cases involving real property depend on the fair market value of the same: the higher the value of the real property, the higher the docket fees due. In contrast, Section 7(b)(1), Rule 141 imposes a fixed or flat rate of docket fees on actions incapable of pecuniary estimation. In order to resolve the issue of whether petitioner paid the correct amount of docket fees, it is necessary to determine the true nature of its Complaint. The dictum adhered to in this jurisdiction is that the nature of an action is determined by the allegations in the body of the pleading or Complaint itself, rather than by its title or heading. 32 However, the Court finds it necessary, in ascertaining the true nature of Civil Case No. 2006-0030, to take into account significant facts and circumstances beyond the Complaint of petitioner, facts and circumstances which petitioner failed to state in its Complaint but were disclosed in the preliminary proceedings before the court a quo. Petitioner persistently avers that its Complaint in Civil Case No. 2006-0030 is primarily for the annulment of the Deeds of Absolute Sale. Based on the allegations and reliefs in the Complaint alone, one would get the impression that the titles to the subject real properties still rest with petitioner; and that the interest of respondents Tan and Obiedo in the same lies only in the Deeds of Absolute Sale sought to be annulled.

What petitioner failed to mention in its Complaint was that respondents Tan and Obiedo already had the Memorandum of Agreement, which clearly provided for the execution of the Deeds of Absolute Sale, registered on the TCTs over the five parcels of land, then still in the name of petitioner. After respondents Tan and Obiedo had the Deeds of Absolute Sale notarized on 3 January 2006 and presented the same to Register of Deeds for Naga City on 8 March 2006, they were already issued TCTs over the real properties in question, in their own names. Respondents Tan and Obiedo have also acquired possession of the said properties, enabling them, by petitioners own admission, to demolish the improvements thereon. It is, thus, suspect that petitioner kept mum about the afore-mentioned facts and circumstances when they had already taken place before it filed its Complaint before the RTC on 16 March 2006. Petitioner never expressed surprise when such facts and circumstances were established before the RTC, nor moved to amend its Complaint accordingly.1avvphi1.zw+ Even though the Memorandum of Agreement was supposed to have long been registered on its TCTs over the five parcels of land, petitioner did not pray for the removal of the same as a cloud on its title. In the same vein, although petitioner alleged that respondents Tan and Obiedo forcibly took physical possession of the subject real properties, petitioner did not seek the restoration of such possession to itself. And despite learning that respondents Tan and Obiedo already secured TCTs over the subject properties in their names, petitioner did not ask for the cancellation of said titles. The only logical and reasonable explanation is that petitioner is reluctant to bring to the attention of the Court certain facts and circumstances, keeping its Complaint safely worded, so as to institute only an action for annulment of Deeds of Absolute Sale. Petitioner deliberately avoided raising issues on the title and possession of the real properties that may lead the Court to classify its case as a real action. No matter how fastidiously petitioner attempts to conceal them, the allegations and reliefs it sought in its Complaint in Civil Case No. 2006-0030 appears to be ultimately a real action, involving as they do the recovery by petitioner of its title to and possession of the five parcels of land from respondents Tan and Obiedo. A real action is one in which the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property; or, as indicated in what is now Section 1, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, a real action is an action affecting title to or recovery of possession of real property. 33 Section 7, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, prior to its amendment by A.M. No. 04-2-04SC, had a specific paragraph governing the assessment of the docket fees for real action, to wit:

109 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

In a real action, the assessed value of the property, or if there is none, the estimated value thereof shall be alleged by the claimant and shall be the basis in computing the fees. It was in accordance with the afore-quoted provision that the Court, in Gochan v. Gochan,34 held that although the caption of the complaint filed by therein respondents Mercedes Gochan, et al. with the RTC was denominated as one for "specific performance and damages," the relief sought was the conveyance or transfer of real property, or ultimately, the execution of deeds of conveyance in their favor of the real properties enumerated in the provisional memorandum of agreement. Under these circumstances, the case before the RTC was actually a real action, affecting as it did title to or possession of real property. Consequently, the basis for determining the correct docket fees shall be the assessed value of the property, or the estimated value thereof as alleged in the complaint. But since Mercedes Gochan failed to allege in their complaint the value of the real properties, the Court found that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the same for non-payment of the correct docket fees. Likewise, in Siapno v. Manalo, the Court disregarded the title/denomination of therein plaintiff Manalos amended petition as one for Mandamus with Revocation of Title and Damages; and adjudged the same to be a real action, the filing fees for which should have been computed based on the assessed value of the subject property or, if there was none, the estimated value thereof. The Court expounded in Siapno that: In his amended petition, respondent Manalo prayed that NTAs sale of the property in dispute to Standford East Realty Corporation and the title issued to the latter on the basis thereof, be declared null and void. In a very real sense, albeit the amended petition is styled as one for "Mandamus with Revocation of Title and Damages," it is, at bottom, a suit to recover from Standford the realty in question and to vest in respondent the ownership and possession thereof. In short, the amended petition is in reality an action in res or a real action. Our pronouncement in Fortune Motors (Phils.), Inc. vs. Court of Appeals is instructive. There, we said: A prayer for annulment or rescission of contract does not operate to efface the true objectives and nature of the action which is to recover real property. (Inton, et al., v. Quintan, 81 Phil. 97, 1948) An action for the annulment or rescission of a sale of real property is a real action. Its prime objective is to recover said real property. (Gavieres v. Sanchez, 94 Phil. 760, 1954) An action to annul a real estate mortgage foreclosure sale is no different from an action to annul a private sale of real property. (Muoz v. Llamas, 87 Phil. 737, 1950).
35

While it is true that petitioner does not directly seek the recovery of title or possession of the property in question, his action for annulment of sale and his claim for damages are closely intertwined with the issue of ownership of the building which, under the law, is considered immovable property, the recovery of which is petitioner's primary objective. The prevalent doctrine is that an action for the annulment or rescission of a sale of real property does not operate to efface the fundamental and prime objective and nature of the case, which is to recover said real property. It is a real action. Unfortunately, and evidently to evade payment of the correct amount of filing fee, respondent Manalo never alleged in the body of his amended petition, much less in the prayer portion thereof, the assessed value of the subject res, or, if there is none, the estimated value thereof, to serve as basis for the receiving clerk in computing and arriving at the proper amount of filing fee due thereon, as required under Section 7 of this Courts en banc resolution of 04 September 1990 (Re: Proposed Amendments to Rule 141 on Legal Fees). Even the amended petition, therefore, should have been expunged from the records. In fine, we rule and so hold that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over its Civil Case No. Q-95-24791.36 It was in Serrano v. Delica,37 however, that the Court dealt with a complaint that bore the most similarity to the one at bar. Therein respondent Delica averred that undue influence, coercion, and intimidation were exerted upon him by therein petitioners Serrano, et al. to effect transfer of his properties. Thus, Delica filed a complaint before the RTC against Serrano, et al., praying that the special power of attorney, the affidavit, the new titles issued in the names of Serrano, et al., and the contracts of sale of the disputed properties be cancelled; that Serrano, et al. be ordered to pay Delica, jointly and severally, actual, moral and exemplary damages in the amount of P200,000.00, as well as attorneys fee of P200,000.00 and costs of litigation; that a TRO and a writ of preliminary injunction be issued ordering Serrano, et al. to immediately restore him to his possession of the parcels of land in question; and that after trial, the writ of injunction be made permanent. The Court dismissed Delicas complaint for the following reasons: A careful examination of respondents complaint is that it is a real action. In Paderanga vs. Buissan, we held that "in a real action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real property, or, as stated in Section 2(a), Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court, a real action is one affecting title to real property or for the recovery of possession of, or for partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of a mortgage on a real property."

110 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

Obviously, respondents complaint is a real action involving not only the recovery of real properties, but likewise the cancellation of the titles thereto. Considering that respondents complaint is a real action, the Rule requires that "the assessed value of the property, or if there is none, the estimated value thereof shall be alleged by the claimant and shall be the basis in computing the fees." We note, however, that neither the "assessed value" nor the "estimated value" of the questioned parcels of land were alleged by respondent in both his original and amended complaint. What he stated in his amended complaint is that the disputed realties have a "BIR zonal valuation" of P1,200.00 per square meter. However, the alleged "BIR zonal valuation" is not the kind of valuation required by the Rule. It is the assessed value of the realty. Having utterly failed to comply with the requirement of the Rule that he shall allege in his complaint the assessed value of his real properties in controversy, the correct docket fee cannot be computed. As such, his complaint should not have been accepted by the trial court. We thus rule that it has not acquired jurisdiction over the present case for failure of herein respondent to pay the required docket fee. On this ground alone, respondents complaint is vulnerable to dismissal.38 Brushing aside the significance of Serrano, petitioner argues that said decision, rendered by the Third Division of the Court, and not by the Court en banc, cannot modify or reverse the doctrine laid down in Spouses De Leon v. Court of Appeals. 39 Petitioner relies heavily on the declaration of this Court in Spouses De Leon that an action for annulment or rescission of a contract of sale of real property is incapable of pecuniary estimation. The Court, however, does not perceive a contradiction between Serrano and the Spouses De Leon. The Court calls attention to the following statement in Spouses De Leon: "A review of the jurisprudence of this Court indicates that in determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation, this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought." Necessarily, the determination must be done on a case-to-case basis, depending on the facts and circumstances of each. What petitioner conveniently ignores is that in Spouses De Leon, the action therein that private respondents instituted before the RTC was "solely for annulment or rescission" of the contract of sale over a real property.40 There appeared to be no transfer of title or possession to the adverse party. Their complaint simply prayed for: 1. Ordering the nullification or rescission of the Contract of Conditional Sale (Supplementary Agreement) for having violated the rights of plaintiffs (private respondents) guaranteed to them under Article 886 of the Civil Code and/or violation of the terms and conditions of the said contract.

2. Declaring void ab initio the Deed of Absolute Sale for being absolutely simulated; and 3. Ordering defendants (petitioners) to pay plaintiffs (private respondents) attorney's fees in the amount of P100,000.00.41 As this Court has previously discussed herein, the nature of Civil Case No. 2006-0030 instituted by petitioner before the RTC is closer to that of Serrano, rather than of Spouses De Leon, hence, calling for the application of the ruling of the Court in the former, rather than in the latter. It is also important to note that, with the amendments introduced by A.M. No. 04-2-04SC, which became effective on 16 August 2004, the paragraph in Section 7, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, pertaining specifically to the basis for computation of docket fees for real actions was deleted. Instead, Section 7(1) of Rule 141, as amended, provides that "in cases involving real property, the FAIR MARKET value of the REAL property in litigation STATED IN THE CURRENT TAX DECLARATION OR CURRENT ZONAL VALUATION OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, WHICH IS HIGHER, OR IF THERE IS NONE, THE STATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN LITIGATION x x x" shall be the basis for the computation of the docket fees. Would such an amendment have an impact on Gochan, Siapno, and Serrano? The Court rules in the negative. A real action indisputably involves real property. The docket fees for a real action would still be determined in accordance with the value of the real property involved therein; the only difference is in what constitutes the acceptable value. In computing the docket fees for cases involving real properties, the courts, instead of relying on the assessed or estimated value, would now be using the fair market value of the real properties (as stated in the Tax Declaration or the Zonal Valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, whichever is higher) or, in the absence thereof, the stated value of the same. In sum, the Court finds that the true nature of the action instituted by petitioner against respondents is the recovery of title to and possession of real property. It is a real action necessarily involving real property, the docket fees for which must be computed in accordance with Section 7(1), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended. The Court of Appeals, therefore, did not commit any error in affirming the RTC Orders requiring petitioner to pay additional docket fees for its Complaint in Civil Case No. 2006-0030. The Court does not give much credence to the allegation of petitioner that if the judgment of the Court of Appeals is allowed to stand and not rectified, it would result in grave injustice and irreparable injury to petitioner in view of the prohibitive amount assessed against it. It is a sweeping assertion which lacks evidentiary support. Undeniably, before the Court can conclude that the amount of docket fees is indeed prohibitive for a party, it would have to look into the financial capacity of said party. It

111 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

baffles this Court that herein petitioner, having the capacity to enter into multi-million transactions, now stalls at paying P720,392.60 additional docket fees so it could champion before the courts its rights over the disputed real properties. Moreover, even though the Court exempts individuals, as indigent or pauper litigants, from paying docket fees, it has never extended such an exemption to a corporate entity. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DENIED. The Decision, dated 22 November 2006, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 94800, which affirmed the Orders dated 24 March 2006 and 29 March 2006 of the RTC, Branch 22, of Naga City, in Civil Case No. RTC-2006-0030, ordering petitioner Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty Development Corporation to pay additional docket/filing fees, computed based on Section 7(a), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended, is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED. MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice

112 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 187104 August 3, 2010

Employment, Cordillera Administrative Region, Baguio City. When circulation and mediation again failed, the parties submitted the issues between them for voluntary arbitration before Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) Daniel T. Farias. Cobarrubias argued that the CA already resolved the forced leave issue in a prior case between the parties, CA-G.R. SP No. 90596,8 ruling that the forced leave for teachers who fail their evaluation for three (3) times within a five-year period should be coterminous with the CBA in force during the same five-year period.9 SLU, for its part, countered that the CA decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 90596 cannot be considered in deciding the present case since it is presently on appeal with this Court (G.R. No. 176717)10 and, thus, is not yet final. It argued that the forced leave provision applies irrespective of which CBA is applicable, provided the employee fails her evaluation three (3) times in five (5) years.11 The Voluntary Arbitrator Decision On October 26, 2007, VA Daniel T. Farias dismissed the case. 12 He found that the CA decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 90596 is not yet final because of the pending appeal with this Court. He noted that the CBA clearly authorized SLU to place its teaching employees on forced leave when they fail in the evaluation for three (3) years within a five-year period, without a distinction on whether the three years fall within one or two CBA periods. Cobarrubias received the VAs decision on November 20, 2007.13 On December 5, 2007, Cobarrubias filed with the CA a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, but failed to pay the required filing fees and to attach to the petition copies of the material portions of the record.14 Thus, on January 14, 2008, the CA dismissed the petition outright for Cobarrubias procedural lapses.15 Cobarrubias received the CA resolution, dismissing her petition, on January 31, 2008.16 On February 15, 2008, Cobarrubias filed her motion for reconsideration, arguing that the ground cited is technical. She, nonetheless, attached to her motion copies of the material portions of the record and the postal money orders for P4,230.00. She maintained that the ends of justice and fair play are better served if the case is decided on its merits.17 On July 30, 2008, the CA reinstated the petition. It found that Cobarrubias substantially complied with the rules by paying the appeal fee in full and attaching the proper documents in her motion for reconsideration.18 SLU insisted that the VA decision had already attained finality for Cobarrubias failure to pay the docket fees on time.

SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY, INC., Petitioner, vs. EVANGELINE C. COBARRUBIAS, Respondent. DECISION BRION, J.: We resolve the present petition for review on certiorari1 filed by petitioner Saint Louis University, Inc. (SLU), to challenge the decision2 and the resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 101708.4 The Factual Background The facts of the case, gathered from the records, are briefly summarized below. Respondent Evangeline C. Cobarrubias is an associate professor of the petitioners College of Human Sciences. She is an active member of the Union of Faculty and Employees of Saint Louis University (UFESLU). The 2001-2006 and 2006-2011 Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) between SLU and UFESLU contain the following common provision on forced leave: Section 7.7. For teaching employees in college who fail the yearly evaluation, the following provisions shall apply: (a) Teaching employees who are retained for three (3) cumulative years in five (5) years shall be on forced leave for one (1) regular semester during which period all benefits due them shall be suspended.7 SLU placed Cobarrubias on forced leave for the first semester of School Year (SY) 20072008 when she failed the evaluation for SY 2002-2003, SY 2005-2006, and SY 2006-2007, with the rating of 85, 77, and 72.9 points, respectively, below the required rating of 87 points. To reverse the imposed forced leave, Cobarrubias sought recourse from the CBAs grievance machinery. Despite the conferences held, the parties still failed to settle their dispute, prompting Cobarrubias to file a case for illegal forced leave or illegal suspension with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board of the Department of Labor and
5 6

113 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

The CA Decision The CA brushed aside SLUs insistence on the finality of the VA decision and annulled it, declaring that the "three (3) cumulative years in five (5) years" phrase in Section 7.7(a) of the 2006-2011 CBA means within the five-year effectivity of the CBA. Thus, the CA ordered SLU to pay all the benefits due Cobarrubias for the first semester of SY 20072008, when she was placed on forced leave.19 When the CA denied20 the motion for reconsideration that followed,21 SLU filed the present petition for review on certiorari.22 The Petition SLU argues that the CA should not have reinstated the appeal since Cobarrubias failed to pay the docket fees within the prescribed period, and rendered the VA decision final and executory. Even if Cobarrubias procedural lapse is disregarded, SLU submits that Section 7.7(a) of the 2006-2011 CBA should apply irrespective of the five-year effectivity of each CBA.23 The Case for Cobarrubias Cobarrubias insists that the CA settled the appeal fee issue, in its July 30, 2008 resolution, when it found that she had substantially complied with the rules by subsequently paying the docket fees in full. She submits that the CAs interpretation of Section 7.7(a) of the 2006-2011 CBA is more in accord with law and jurisprudence.24 The Issues The core issues boil down to whether the CA erred in reinstating Cobarrubias petition despite her failure to pay the appeal fee within the reglementary period, and in reversing the VA decision. To state the obvious, the appeal fee is a threshold issue that renders all other issues unnecessary if SLUs position on this issue is correct. The Courts Ruling We find the petition meritorious. Payment of Appellate Court Docket Fees Appeal is not a natural right but a mere statutory privilege, thus, appeal must be made strictly in accordance with the provision set by law.25 Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides that appeals from the judgment of the VA shall be taken to the CA, by filing a petition for review within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the notice of judgment. 26 Furthermore, upon the filing of the petition, the petitioner shall pay to the CA clerk of court the docketing and other lawful fees;27 non-compliance with the procedural requirements shall be a sufficient ground for the petitions dismissal. 28 Thus, payment in

full of docket fees within the prescribed period is not only mandatory, but also jurisdictional.29 It is an essential requirement, without which, the decision appealed from would become final and executory as if no appeal has been filed.30 As early as the 1932 case of Lazaro v. Endencia and Andres, 31 we stressed that the payment of the full amount of the docket fee is an indispensable step for the perfection of an appeal. In Lee v. Republic,32 we decided that even though half of the appellate court docket fee was deposited, no appeal was deemed perfected where the other half was tendered after the period within which payment should have been made. In Aranas v. Endona,33 we reiterated that the appeal is not perfected if only a part of the docket fee is deposited within the reglementary period and the remainder is tendered after the expiration of the period. The rulings in these cases have been consistently reiterated in subsequent cases: Guevarra v. Court of Appeals,34 Pedrosa v. Spouses Hill,35 Gegare v. Court of Appeals,36 Lazaro v. Court of Appeals,37 Sps. Manalili v. Sps. de Leon,38 La Salette College v. Pilotin,39 Saint Louis University v. Spouses Cordero,40 M.A. Santander Construction, Inc. v. Villanueva,41 Far Corporation v. Magdaluyo,42 Meatmasters Intl. Corp. v. Lelis Integrated Devt. Corp.,43 Tamayo v. Tamayo, Jr.,44 Enriquez v. Enriquez,45 KLT Fruits, Inc. v. WSR Fruits, Inc.,46 Tan v. Link,47 Ilusorio v. Ilusorio-Yap,48 and most recently in Tabigue v. International Copra Export Corporation (INTERCO),49 and continues to be the controlling doctrine. In the present case, Cobarrubias filed her petition for review on December 5, 2007, fifteen (15) days from receipt of the VA decision on November 20, 2007, but paid her docket fees in full only after seventy-two (72) days, when she filed her motion for reconsideration on February 15, 2008 and attached the postal money orders for P4,230.00. Undeniably, the docket fees were paid late, and without payment of the full docket fees, Cobarrubias appeal was not perfected within the reglementary period. Exceptions to the Rule on Payment of Appellate Court Docket Fees not applicable Procedural rules do not exist for the convenience of the litigants; the rules were established primarily to provide order to and enhance the efficiency of our judicial system.50 While procedural rules are liberally construed, the provisions on reglementary periods are strictly applied, indispensable as they are to the prevention of needless delays, and are necessary to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. 51 Viewed in this light, procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have prejudiced a party's substantive rights; like all rules, they are required to be followed. However, there are recognized exceptions to their strict observance, such as: (1) most persuasive and weighty reasons; (2) to relieve a

114 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure; (3) good faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying within a reasonable time from the time of the default; (4) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (5) the merits of the case; (6) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (7) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; (8) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby; (9) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence without the appellant's fault; (10) peculiar, legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case; (11) in the name of substantial justice and fair play; (12) importance of the issues involved; and (13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge, guided by all the attendant circumstances.52 Thus, there should be an effort, on the part of the party invoking liberality, to advance a reasonable or meritorious explanation for his/her failure to comply with the rules.1avvphi1 In Cobarrubias' case, no such explanation has been advanced. Other than insisting that the ends of justice and fair play are better served if the case is decided on its merits, Cobarrubias offered no excuse for her failure to pay the docket fees in full when she filed her petition for review. To us, Cobarrubias omission is fatal to her cause. We, thus, find that the CA erred in reinstating Cobarrubias petition for review despite the nonpayment of the requisite docket fees within the reglementary period. The VA decision had lapsed to finality when the docket fees were paid; hence, the CA had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal except to order its dismissal. WHEREFORE, the present petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 101708 are hereby DECLARED VOID and are consequently SET ASIDE. The decision of the voluntary arbitrator, that the voided Court of Appeals decision and resolution nullified, stands. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice

FIRST DIVISION [G.R. No. 169576, October 17, 2008] LEONIDES MERCADO, REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIRS: RACQUEL D. MERCADO, JIMMY D. MERCADO, HENRY D. MERCADO, LOURICAR D. MERCADO AND VIRGILIO D. MERCADO, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS. RESOLUTION

CORONA, J.:

Leonides Mercado had been distributing respondent San Miguel Corporation's (SMC's) beer products in Quiapo, Manila since 1967. In 1991, SMC extended to him a P7.5 million credit line allowing him to withdraw goods on credit. To secure his purchases, Mercado assigned three China Banking Corporation (CBC) certificates of deposit amounting to P5 million[1] to SMC and executed a continuing hold-out agreement stating: Any demand made by [SMC] on [CBC], claiming default on my/our part shall be conclusive on [CBC] and shall serve as absolute authority for [CBC] to encash the [CBC certificates of deposit] in accordance with the third paragraph of this Hold-Out Agreement, whether or not I/we have in fact defaulted on any of my/our obligations with [SMC], it being understood that the issue of whether or not there was factual default must be threshed out solely between me/us and [SMC] He also submitted three surety bonds from Eastern Assurance and Surety Corporation (EASCO) totaling P2.6 million.[2] On February 10, 1992, SMC notified CBC that Mercado failed to pay for the items he withdrew on credit. Consequently, citing the continuing hold-out agreement, it asked CBC to release the proceeds of the assigned certificates of deposit. CBC approved SMB's request and informed Mercado.

115 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

On March 2, 1992, Mercado filed an action to annul the continuing hold-out agreement and deed of assignment in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 55.[3] He claimed that the continuing hold-out agreement allowed forfeiture without the benefit of foreclosure. It was therefore void pursuant to Article 2088 of the Civil Code.[4] Moreover, Mercado argued that he had already settled his recent purchases on credit but SMC erroneously applied the said payments to his old accounts not covered by the continuing hold-out agreement (i.e., purchases made prior to the extension of the credit line). On March 18, 1992, SMC filed its answer with counterclaim against Mercado. It contended that Mercado delivered only two CBC certificates of deposit amounting to P4.5 million[5] and asserted that the execution of the continuing hold-out agreement and deed of assignment was a recognized business practice. Furthermore, because Mercado admitted his outstanding liabilities, SMC sought payment of the lees products he withdrew (or purchased on credit) worth P7,468,153.75.[6] On April 23, 1992, SMC filed a third-party complaint against EASCO.[7] It sought to collect the proceeds of the surety bonds submitted by Mercado. On September 14, 1994, Mercado filed an urgent manifestation and motion seeking the dismissal of the complaint. He claimed that he was no longer interested in annulling the continuing hold-out agreement and deed of assignment. The RTC, however, denied the motion.[8] Instead, it set the case for pre-trial. Thereafter, trial ensued. During trial, Mercado acknowledged the accuracy of SMC's computation of his outstanding liability as of August 15, 1991. Thus, the RTC dismissed the complaint and ordered Mercado and EASCO (to the extent of P2.6 million or the value of its bonds) to jointly and severally pay SMC the amount of P7,468,153.75.[9] Aggrieved, Mercado and EASCO appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA)[10] insisting that Mercado did not default in the payment of his obligations to SMC. On December 14, 2004, the CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto.[11] Mercado and EASCO both moved for reconsideration but their respective motions were denied.[12] On October 28, 2005, EASCO filed a petition for review on certiorari in this Court[13] but eventually agreed to settle its liability with SMC.[14] The petition was terminated on September 19, 2007.[15]

Meanwhile, Mercado passed away and was substituted by his heirs, petitioners Racquel D. Mercado, Jimmy D. Mercado, Henry D. Mercado, Louricar D. Mercado and Virgilio D. Mercado. Petitioners subsequently filed this petition asserting that the CA erred in affirming the RTC decision in toto. The said decision (insofar as it ordered Mercado to pay SMC P7,468,153.75) was void. SMC's counterclaim was permissive in nature. Inasmuch as SMC did not pay docket fees, the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over the counterclaim. We deny the petition. A counterclaim (or a claim which a defending party may have against any party)[16] may be compulsory[17] or permissive. A counterclaim that (1) arises out of (or is necessarily connected with) the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim; (2) falls within the jurisdiction of the court and (3) does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction, is compulsory.[18] Otherwise, a counterclaim is merely permissive. When Mercado sought to annul the continuing hold-out agreement and deed of assignment (which he executed as security for his credit purchases), he in effect sought to be freed from them. While he admitted having outstanding obligations, he nevertheless asserted that those were not covered by the assailed accessory contracts. For its part, aside from invoking the validity of the said agreements, SMC therefore sought to collect the payment for the value of goods Mercado purchased on credit. Thus, Mercado's complaint and SMC's counterclaim both touched the issues of whether the continuing hold-out agreement and deed of assignment were valid and whether Mercado had outstanding liabilities to SMC. The same evidence would essentially support or refute Mercado's claim and SMC's counterclaim. Based on the foregoing, had these issues been tried separately, the efforts of the RTC and the parties would have had to be duplicated. Clearly, SMC's counterclaim, being logically related to Mercado's claim, was compulsory in nature.[19] Consequently, the payment of docket fees was not necessary for the RTC to acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED.

116 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 144025 December 27, 2002

P10,000 as moral damages and another P10,000 as attorneys fees. The pertinent conclusion of the trial court reads as follows: "Aware of such fact, the plaintiff nonetheless continued to stay in the premises of Lot 18 on the proposal that he would also buy the same. Plaintiff however failed to buy Lot 18 and likewise defaulted in the payment of his loan with the SSS involving Lot 19. Consequently Lot 19 was foreclosed and sold at public auction. Thereafter TCT No. T29950 was cancelled and in lieu thereof TCT No. T-86612 (Exh. 9) was issued in favor of SSS. This being the situation obtaining, the reformation of instruments, even if allowed, or the swapping of Lot 18 and Lot 19 as earlier proposed by the plaintiff, is no longer feasible considering that plaintiff is no longer the owner of Lot 19, otherwise, defendant will be losing Lot 18 without any substitute therefore (sic). Upon the other hand, plaintiff will be unjustly enriching himself having in its favor both Lot 19 which was earlier mortgaged by him and subsequently foreclosed by SSS, as well as Lot 18 where his house is presently standing. "The logic and common sense of the situation lean heavily in favor of the defendant. It is evident that what plaintiff had bought from the defendant is Lot 19 covered by TCT No. 28254 which parcel of land has been properly indicated in the instruments and not Lot 18 as claimed by the plaintiff. The contracts being clear and unmistakable, they reflect the true intention of the parties, besides the plaintiff failed to assail the contracts on mutual mistake, hence the same need no longer be reformed."3 On June 22, 1998, a writ of execution was issued by the trial court. Thus, on September 17, 1998, petitioners filed an urgent motion to recall writ of execution, alleging that the court a quo had no jurisdiction to try the case as it was vested in the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) pursuant to PD 957 (The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protective Decree). Conformably, petitioners filed a new complaint against private respondent with the HLURB. Likewise, on June 30, 1999, petitioner-spouses filed before the Court of Appeals a petition for annulment of judgment, premised on the ground that the trial court had no jurisdiction to try and decide Civil Case No. 17115. In a decision rendered on December 29, 1999, the Court of Appeals denied the petition for annulment of judgment, relying mainly on the jurisprudential doctrine of estoppel as laid down in the case of Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy.4 Their subsequent motion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioners filed this instant petition, contending that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition by applying the principle of estoppel, even if the Regional Trial Court, Branch 36 of Iloilo City had no jurisdiction to decide Civil Case No. 17115.

SPS. RENE GONZAGA and LERIO GONZAGA, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Second Division, Manila, HON. QUIRICO G. DEFENSOR, Judge, RTC, Branch 36, Sixth Judicial Region, Iloilo City, and LUCKY HOMES, INC., represented by WILSON JESENA, JR., as Manager, respondents. DECISION CORONA, J.: Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of the decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated December 29, 1999 and its resolution dated June 1, 2000 in CA-G.R. SP No. 54587. The records disclose that, sometime in 1970, petitioner-spouses purchased a parcel of land from private respondent Lucky Homes, Inc., situated in Iloilo and containing an area of 240 square meters. Said lot was specifically denominated as Lot No. 19 under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 28254 and was mortgaged to the Social Security System (SSS) as security for their housing loan. Petitioners then started the construction of their house, not on Lot No. 19 but on Lot No. 18, as private respondent mistakenly identified Lot No. 18 as Lot No. 19. Upon realizing its error, private respondent, through its general manager, informed petitioners of such mistake but the latter offered to buy Lot No. 18 in order to widen their premises. Thus, petitioners continued with the construction of their house. However, petitioners defaulted in the payment of their housing loan from SSS. Consequently, Lot No. 19 was foreclosed by SSS and petitioners certificate of title was cancelled and a new one was issued in the name of SSS. After Lot No. 19 was foreclosed, petitioners offered to swap Lot Nos. 18 and 19 and demanded from private respondent that their contract of sale be reformed and another deed of sale be executed with respect to Lot No. 18, considering that their house was built therein. However, private respondent refused. This prompted petitioners to file, on June 13, 1996, an action for reformation of contract and damages with the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 36, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 17115. On January 15, 1998, the trial court2 rendered its decision dismissing the complaint for lack of merit and ordering herein petitioners to pay private respondent the amount of

117 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

At the outset, it should be stressed that petitioners are seeking from us the annulment of a trial court judgment based on lack of jurisdiction. Because it is not an appeal, the correctness of the judgment is not in issue here. Accordingly, there is no need to delve into the propriety of the decision rendered by the trial court. Petitioners claim that the recent decisions of this Court have already abandoned the doctrine laid down in Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy.5 We do not agree. In countless decisions, this Court has consistently held that, while an order or decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be assailed at any stage, active participation in the proceedings in the court which rendered the order or decision will bar such party from attacking its jurisdiction. As we held in the leading case of Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy:6 "A party may be estopped or barred from raising a question in different ways and for different reasons. Thus we speak of estoppel in pais, or estoppel by deed or by record, and of estoppel by laches. xxx "It has been held that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate, or question that same jurisdiction x x x x [T]he question whether the court had jurisdiction either of the subject matter of the action or of the parties was not important in such cases because the party is barred from such conduct not because the judgment or order of the court is valid and conclusive as an adjudication, but for the reason that such a practice can not be tolerated obviously for reasons of public policy." Tijam has been reiterated in many succeeding cases. Thus, in Orosa vs. Court of Appeals;7 Ang Ping vs. Court of Appeals;8 Salva vs. Court of Appeals;9 National Steel Corporation vs. Court of Appeals;10 Province of Bulacan vs. Court of Appeals;11 PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation vs. Court of Appeals,12 this Court affirmed the rule that a partys active participation in all stages of the case before the trial court, which includes invoking the courts authority to grant affirmative relief, effectively estops such party from later challenging that same courts jurisdiction. In the case at bar, it was petitioners themselves who invoked the jurisdiction of the court a quo by instituting an action for reformation of contract against private respondents. It appears that, in the proceedings before the trial court, petitioners vigorously asserted their cause from start to finish. Not even once did petitioners ever raise the issue of the courts jurisdiction during the entire proceedings which lasted for two years. It was only after the trial court rendered its decision and issued a writ of execution against them in 1998 did petitioners first raise the issue of jurisdiction and it

was only because said decision was unfavorable to them. Petitioners thus effectively waived their right to question the courts jurisdiction over the case they themselves filed. Petitioners should bear the consequence of their act. They cannot be allowed to profit from their omission to the damage and prejudice of the private respondent. This Court frowns upon the undesirable practice of a party submitting his case for decision and then accepting the judgment but only if favorable, and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction if not.13 Public policy dictates that this Court must strongly condemn any double-dealing by parties who are disposed to trifle with the courts by deliberately taking inconsistent positions, in utter disregard of the elementary principles of justice and good faith.14 There is no denying that, in this case, petitioners never raised the issue of jurisdiction throughout the entire proceedings in the trial court. Instead, they voluntarily and willingly submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of said court. It is now too late in the day for them to repudiate the jurisdiction they were invoking all along. WHEREFORE, the petition for review is hereby DENIED. SO ORDERED. Puno, (Chairman), Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Morales, JJ., concur.

118 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

EN BANC [G.R. No. 128096. January 20, 1999] PANFILO M. LACSON, petitioner vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SANDIGANBAYAN, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, MYRNA ABALORA, NENITA ALAP-AP, IMELDA PANCHO MONTERO, and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. ROMEO M. ACOP and FRANCISCO G. ZUBIA, JR., petitioners-intervenors. DECISION MARTINEZ, J.: The constitutionality of Sections 4 and 7 of Republic Act No. 8249 an act which further defines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is being challenged in this petition for prohibition and mandamus. Petitioner Panfilo Lacson, joined by petitioners-intervenors Romeo Acop and Francisco Zubia, Jr., also seeks to prevent the Sandiganbayan from proceeding with the trial of Criminal Cases Nos. 23047-23057 (for multiple murder) against them on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The antecedents of this case, as gathered from the parties pleadings and documentary proofs, are as follows: In the early morning of May 18, 1995, eleven (11) persons believed to be members of the Kuratong Baleleng gang, reportedly an organized crime syndicate which had been involve in a spate of bank robberies in Metro Manila, were slain along Commonwealth Avenue in Quezon City by elements of the Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence Task Group (ABRITG) headed by Chief Superintendent Jewel Canson of the Philippine National Police (PNP). The ABRITG was composed of police officers from the Traffic Management Command (TMC) led by petitioner-intervenor Senior Superintendent Francisco Zubia, Jr.; Presidential Anti-Crime Commission Task Force Habagat (PACCTFH) headed by petitioner Chief Superintendent Panfilo M. Lacson; Central Police District Command (CPDC) led by Chief Superintendent Ricardo de Leon; and the Criminal Investigation Command (CIC) headed by petitioner-intervenor Chief Superintendent Romeo Acop. Acting on a media expose of SPO2 Eduardo delos Reyes, a member of the CIC, that what actually transpired at dawn of May 18, 1995 was a summary execution (or a rub out) and not a shoot-out between the Kuratong Baleleng gang members and the ABRITG, Ombudsman Aniano Desierto formed a panel of investigators headed by the Deputy Ombudsman for Military Affairs, Bienvenido Blancaflor, to investigate the incident. This panel later absolve from any criminal liability all the PNP officers and personnel

allegedly involved in the May 18, 1995 incident, with a finding that the said incident was a legitimate police operation. However, a review board led by Overall Deputy Ombudsman Francisco Villa modified the Blancaflor panels finding and recommended the indictment for multiple murder against twenty-six (26) respondents, including herein petitioner and intervenors. This recommendation was approved by the Ombudsman, except for the withdrawal of the charges against Chief Supt. Ricardo de Leon. Thus, on November 2, 1995, petitioner Panfilo Lacson was among those charged as principal in eleven (11) informations for murder before the Sandiganbayans Second Division, while intervenors Romeo Acop and Francisco Zubia, Jr. were among those charged in the same informations as accessories after-the-fact. Upon motion by all the accused in the 11 informations, the Sandiganbayan allowed them to file a motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsmans action. After conducting a reinvestigation, the Ombudsman filed on March 1, 1996 eleven (11) amended informations before the Sandiganbayan, wherein petitioner was charged only as an accessory, together with Romeo Acop and Francisco Zubia, Jr. and others. One of the accused was dropped from the case. On March 5-6, 1996, all the accused filed separate motions questioning the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, asserting that under the amended informations, the cases fall within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court pursuant to Section 2 (paragraphs a and c) of Republic Act No. 7975. They contend that the said law limited the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to cases where one or more of the "principal accused are government officials with Salary Grade (SG) 27 or higher, or PNP officials with the rank of Chief Superintendent (Brigadier General) or higher. The highest ranking principal accused in the amended informations has the rank of only a Chief Inspector, and none has the equivalent of at least SG 27. Thereafter, in a Resolution dated May 8, 1996 (promulgated on May 9, 1996), penned by Justice Demetriou, with Justices Lagman and de Leon concurring, and Justices Balajadia and Garchitorena dissenting, the Sandiganbayan admitted the amended information and ordered the cases transferred to the Quezon City Regional Trial Court which has original and exclusive jurisdiction under R.A. 7975, as none of the principal accused has the rank of Chief Superintendent or higher. On May 17, 1996, the Office of the Special Prosecutor moved for a reconsideration, insisting that the cases should remain with the Sandiganbayan. This was opposed by petitioner and some of the accused.

119 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

While these motions for reconsideration were pending resolution, and even before the issue of jurisdiction cropped up with the filing of the amended informations on March 1, 1996, House Bill No. 2299] and No. 1094 (sponsored by Representatives Edcel C. Lagman and Neptali M. Gonzales II, respectively), as well as Senate Bill No. 844 (sponsored by Senator Neptali Gonzales), were introduced in Congress, defining/expanding the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Specifically, the said bills sought, among others, to amend the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan by deleting the word principal from the phrase principal accused in Section 2 (paragraphs a and c) of R.A. No. 7975. These bills were consolidated and later approved into law as R.A. No. 8249i[13]. The law is entitled, AN ACT FURTHER DEFINING THE JURISDICTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1606, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. It took effect on February 25, 1997.13 by the President of the Philippines on February 5, 1997. Subsequently, on March 5, 1997, the Sandiganbayan promulgated a Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration of the Special Prosecutor, ruling that it stands pat in its resolution dated May 8, 1996. On the same day, the Sandiganbayan issued an ADDENDUM to its March 5, 1997 Resolution, the pertinent portion of which reads: After Justice Lagman wrote the Resolution and Justice Demetriou concurred in it, but before Justice de Leon, Jr. rendered his concurring and dissenting opinion, the legislature enacted Republic Act 8249 and the President of the Philippines approved it on February 5, 1997. Considering the pertinent provisions of the new law, Justices Lagman and Demetriou are now in favor of granting, as they are now granting, the Special Prosecutors motion for reconsideration. Justice de Leon has already done so in his concurring and dissenting opinion. xxx xxx xxx

any court over which trial has not begun as of the approval hereof. Petitioner argues that: a) The questioned provision of the statute were introduced by the authors thereof in bad faith as it was made to precisely suit the situation in which petitioners cases were in at the Sandiganbayan by restoring jurisdiction thereover to it, thereby violating his right to procedural due process and the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Further, from the way the Sandiganbayan has foot-dragged for nine (9) months the resolution of a pending incident involving the transfer of the cases to the Regional Trial Court, the passage of the law may have been timed to overtake such resolution to render the issue therein moot, and frustrate the exercise of petitioners vested rights under the old Sandiganbayan law (RA 7975) b) Retroactive application of the law is plain from the fact that it was again made to suit the peculiar circumstances in which petitioners cases were under, namely, that trial had not yet commenced, as provided in Section 7, to make certain that those cases will no longer be remanded to the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, as the Sandiganbayan alone should try them, thus making it an ex post facto legislation and a denial of the right of petitioner as an accused in Criminal Case Nos. 23047 23057 to procedural due process c) The title of the law is misleading in that it contains the aforesaid innocuous provisions in Sections 4 and 7 which actually expands rather than defines the old Sandiganbayan law (RA 7975), thereby violating the one-title-one-subject requirement for the passage of statutes under Section 26(1), Article VI of the Constitution. For their part, the intervenors, in their petition-in-intervention, add that while Republic Act No. 8249 innocuously appears to have merely expanded the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, the introduction of Sections 4 and 7 in said statute impressed upon it the character of a class legislation and an ex-post facto statute intended to apply specifically to the accused in the Kuratong Baleleng case pending before the Sandiganbayan. They further argued that if their case is tried before the Sandiganbayan their right to procedural due process would be violated as they could no longer avail of the two-tiered appeal to the Sandiganbayan, which they acquired under R.A. 7975, before recourse to the Supreme Court. Both the Office of the Ombudsman and the Solicitor General filed separate pleadings in support of the constitutionality of the challenged provisions of the law in question and praying that both the petition and the petition-in-intervention be dismissed. This Court then issued a Resolution requiring the parties to file simultaneously within a nonextendible period of ten (10) days from notice thereof additional memoranda on

Considering that three of the accused in each of these cases are PNP Chief Superintendents: namely, Jewel T. Canson, Romeo M. Acop and Panfilo M. Lacson, and that trial has not yet begun in all these cases in fact, no order of arrest has been issued this court has competence to take cognizance of these cases. To recapitulate, the net result of all the foregoing is that by the vote of 3 to 2, the court admitted the Amended Informations in these cases and by the unanimous vote of 4 with 1 neither concurring nor dissenting, retained jurisdiction to try and decide the cases. [Emphasis supplied] Petitioner now questions the constitutionality of Section 4 R.A. No. 8249, including Section 7 thereof which provides that the said law shall apply to all cases pending in

120 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

the question of whether the subject amended informations filed in Criminal Cases Nos. 23047-23057 sufficiently alleged the commission by the accused therein of the crime charged within the meaning Section 4 b of Republic Act No. 8249, so as to bring the said cases within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. The parties, except for the Solicitor General who is representing the People of the Philippines, filed the required supplemental memorandum within the nonextendible reglementary period. The established rule is that every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality, and to justify its nullification there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful and argumentative one. The burden of proving the invalidity of the law lies with those who challenge it. That burden, we regret to say, was not convincingly discharged in the present case. The creation of the Sandiganbayan was mandated in Section 5, Article XIII of the 1973 Constitution, which provides: SEC. 5. The Batasang Pambansa shall create a special court, to be known as Sandiganbayan, which shall have jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses committed by public officers and employees including those in government-owned or controlled corporations, in relation to their office as may be determined by law." The said special court is retained in the new (1987) Constitution under the following provision in Article XI, Section 4: Section 4. The present anti-graft court known as the Sandiganbayan shall continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law. Pursuant to the constitutional mandate, Presidential Decree No. 1486 created the Sandiganbayan. Thereafter, the following laws on the Sandiganbayan, in chronological order, were enacted: P.D. No. 1606, Section 20 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, P.D. No. 1860, P.D. No. 1861,ii[25] R.A. No. 7975,iii[26] and R.A. No. 8249. Under the latest amendments introduced by Section 4 of R.A. No. 8249, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the following cases: SEC. 4. Section 4 of the same decree *P.D. No. 1606, as amended+ is hereby further amended to read as follows: SEC. 4. Jurisdiction The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:

a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense: (1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including: (a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other provincial department heads; (b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads; (c) (d) rank; Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher; Philippine Army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher

(e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position of provincial director and those holding the rank of senior superintendent or higher; (f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor; (g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations; (2) Members of Congress or officials thereof classified as Grade 27 and up under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989; (3) Members of the Judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; (4) Chairman and members of the Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; (5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 or higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989. b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in Subsection a of this section in relation to their office.

121 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986. In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary Grade 27 or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act 6758, or military and PNP officers mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended. The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgment, resolution or orders of the regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided. "The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions of the issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto, arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the Supreme Court. The procedure prescribed in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as well as the implementing rules that the Supreme Court has promulgated and may hereafter promulgate, relative to appeals/petitions for review to the Court of Appeals, shall apply to appeals and petitions for review filed with the Sandiganbayan. In all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court, the Office of the Ombudsman, through its special prosecutor, shall represent the People of the Philippines, except in cases filed pursuant to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986. In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the public officers or employees, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said public officers and employees in the proper courts which shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over them. xxx xxx x x x. (Emphasis supplied)

The Sandiganbayan law prior to R.A. 8249 was R.A. 7975. Section 2 of R.A. 7975 provides: SEC. 2. Section 4 of the same decree *Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended+ is hereby further amended to read as follows: SEC. 4. Jurisdiction The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving: a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the principal accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense: (1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including: (a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other provincial department heads; (b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads; (c) (d) rank; (e) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher; Philippine Army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of high PNP chief superintendent and PNP officers of higher rank;

(f) City and Provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor; (g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations; (2) Members of Congress or officials thereof classified as Grade 27 and up under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989; (3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; (4) Chairman and members of the Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;

Section 7 of R.A. No. 8249 states: SEC. 7. Transitory provision. This act shall apply to all cases pending in any court over which trial has not begun as of the approval hereof. (Emphasis supplied)

122 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade 27 or higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989. b. Other offenses or felonies committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in Subsection a of this section in relation to their office. c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A. In cases where none of the principal accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary Grade 27 or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act 6758, or PNP officers occupying the rank of superintendent or higher, or their equivalent, exclusive jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction on appeals from the final judgments, resolutions or orders of regular courts where all the accused are occupying positions lower than grade 27, or not otherwise covered by the preceding enumeration. xxx xxx xxx

A perusal of the aforequoted Section 4 of R.A. 8249 reveals that to fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, the following requisites must concur: (1) the offense committed is a violation of (a) R.A. 3019, as amended (the AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act), (b) R.A. 1379 (the law on ill-gotten wealth), (c) Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code (the law on bribery), (d) Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 14-A, issued in 1986 (sequestration cases), or (e) other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes; (2) the offender committing the offenses in items (a), (b), (c) and (e) is a public official or employeev[32] holding any of the positions enumerated in paragraph a of Section 4; and (3) the offense committed is in relation to the office. Considering that herein petitioner and intervenors are being charged with murder which is a felony punishable under Title VIII of the Revised Penal Code, the governing provision on the jurisdictional offense is not paragraph but paragraph b, Section 4 of R.A. 8249. This paragraph b pertains to other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a of [Section 4, R.A. 8249+ in relation to their office. The phrase other offenses or felonies is too broad as to include the crime of murder, provided it was committed in relation to the accuseds official functions. Thus, under said paragraph b, what determines the Sandiganbayans jurisdiction is the official position or rank of the offender that is, whether he is one of those public officers or employees enumerated in paragraph a of Section 4. The offenses mentioned in paragraphs a, b and c of the same Section 4 do not make any reference to the criminal participation of the accused public officer as to whether he is charged as a principal, accomplice or accessory. In enacting R.A. 8249, the Congress simply restored the original provisions of P.D. 1606 which does not mention the criminal participation of the public officer as a requisite to determine the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner and intervenors posture that Section 4 and 7 of R.A. 8249 violate their right to equal protection of the lawvi[33] because its enactment was particularly directed only to the Kuratong Baleleng cases in the Sandiganbayan, is a contention too shallow to deserve merit. No concrete evidence and convincing argument were presented to warrant a declaration of an act of the entire Congress and signed into law by the highest officer of the co-equal executive department as unconstitutional. Every classification made by law is presumed reasonable. Thus, the party who challenges the law must present proof of arbitrariness. It is an established precept in constitutional law that the guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based on reasonable classification. The classification is reasonable and not arbitrary when there is concurrence of four elements, namely:

In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the public officers or employees, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said public officers and employees in the proper courts which shall have exclusive jurisdiction over them. xxx x x x. (Emphasis supplied)

Section 7 of R.A. No. 7975 reads: SEC. 7. Upon the effectivity of this Act, all criminal cases which trial has not begun in the Sandiganbayan shall be referred to the proper courts. Under paragraphs a and c, Section 4 of R.A. 8249, the word principal before the word accused appearing in the above-quoted Section 2 (paragraphs a and c) of R.A. 7975, was deleted. It is due to this deletion of the word principal that the parties herein are at loggerheads over the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner and intervenors, relying on R.A. 7975, argue that the Regional Trial Court, not the Sandiganbayan, has jurisdiction over the Subject criminal cases since none of the principal accused under the amended information has the rank of Superintendentiv[28] or higher. On the other hand, the Office of the Ombudsman, through the Special Prosecutor who is tasked to represent the People before the Supreme Court except in certain cases, contends that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction pursuant to R.A. 8249.

123 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

(1) (2) (3) (4)

it must rest on substantial distinction; it must be germane to the purpose of the law; must not be limited to existing conditions only, and must apply equally to all members of the same class,

acted, deliberated, considered by 23 other Senators and by about 250 Representatives, and was separately approved by the Senate and House of Representatives and, finally, by the President of the Philippines. On the perceived bias that the Sandiganbayan Justices allegedly had against petitioner during the committee hearings, the same would not constitute sufficient justification to nullify an otherwise valid law. Their presence and participation in the legislative hearings was deemed necessary by Congress since the matter before the committee involves the graft court of which one is the head of the Sandiganbayan and the other a member thereof. The Congress, in its plenary legislative powers, is particularly empowered by the Constitution to invite persons to appear before it whenever it decides to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. Petitioner and intervenors further argued that the retroactive application of R.A. 8249 to the Kuratong Baleleng cases constitutes an ex post facto law for they are deprived of their right to procedural due process as they can no longer avail of the two tiered appeal which they had allegedly acquired under R.A. 7975. Again, this contention is erroneous. There is nothing ex post facto in R.A. 8249. In Calder v. Bull, an ex post facto law is one (a)which makes an act done criminal before the passing of the law and which was innocent when committed, and punishes such action; or (b) which aggravates a crime or makes it greater that when it was committed; or

all of which are present in this case. The challengers of Sections 4 and 7 of R.A. 8249 failed to rebut the presumption of constitutionality and reasonableness of the questioned provisions. The classification between those pending cases involving the concerned public officials whose trial has not yet commenced and whose cases could have been affected by the amendments of the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction under R.A. 8249, as against those cases where trial had already started as of the approval of the law, rests on substantial distinction that makes real differences. In the first instance, evidence against them were not yet presented, whereas in the latter the parties had already submitted their respective proofs, examined witness and presented documents. Since it is within the power of Congress to define the jurisdiction of courts subject to the constitutional limitations, it can be reasonably anticipated that an alteration of that jurisdiction would necessarily affect pending cases, which is why it has to provide for a remedy in the form of a transitory provision. Thus, petitioner and intervenors cannot now claim that Sections 4 and 7 placed them under a different category from those similarly situated as them. Precisely, paragraph a of Section 4 provides that it shall apply to all cases involving" certain public officials and, under the transitory provision in Section 7, to all cases pending in any court. Contrary to petitioner and intervenors arguments, the law is not particularly directed only to the Kuratong Baleleng cases. The transitory provision does not only cover cases which are in the Sandiganbayan but also in any court. It just happened that the Kuratong Baleleng cases are one of those affected by the law. Moreover, those cases where trial had already begun are not affected by the transitory provision under Section 7 of the new law (R.A. 8249). In their futile attempt to have said sections nullified, heavy reliance is premised on what is perceived as bad faith on the part of a Senator and two Justices of the Sandiganbayan for their participation in the passage of the said provisions. In particular, it is stressed that the Senator had expressed strong sentiments against those officials involved in the Kuratong Baleleng cases during the hearings conducted on the matter by the committee headed by the Senator. Petitioner further contends that the legislature is biased against him as he claims to have been selected from among the 67 million other Filipinos as the object of the deletion of the word principal in paragraph a, Section 4 of P.D. 1606, as amended, and of the transitory provision of R.A. 8249. R.A. 8249, while still a bill, was

(c) which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it was committed, (d) which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the defendant. Every law which, in relation to the offense or its consequences, alters the situation of a person to his disadvantage. This Court added two more to the list, namely: (f) that which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only but in effect imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right which when done was lawful; (g) deprives a person accused of crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty.

124 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

Ex post facto law, generally, prohibits retrospectivity of penal laws.vii[46] R.A. 8249 is not a penal law. It is a substantive law on jurisdiction which is not penal in character. Penal laws are those acts of the Legislature which prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their violations; or those that define crimes, treat of their nature, and provide for their punishment. R.A. 7975, which amended P.D. 1606 as regards the Sandiganbayans jurisdiction, its mode of appeal and other procedural matters, has been declared by the Court as not a penal law, but clearly a procedural statute, i.e. one which prescribes rules of procedure by which courts applying laws of all kinds can properly administer justice. Not being a penal law, the retroactive application of R.A. 8249 cannot be challenged as unconstitutional. Petitioners and intervenors contention that their right to a two-tiered appeal which they acquired under R.A. 7975 has been diluted by the enactment of R.A. 8249, is incorrect. The same contention has already been rejected by the court several times considering that the right to appeal is not a natural right but statutory in nature that can be regulated by law. The mode of procedure provided for in the statutory right of appeal is not included in the prohibition against ex post facto laws. R.A. 8249 pertains only to matters of procedure, and being merely an amendatory statute it does not partake the nature of an ex post facto law. It does not mete out a penalty and, therefore, does not come within the prohibition. Moreover, the law did not alter the rules of evidence or the mode of trial. It has been ruled that adjective statutes may be made applicable to actions pending and unresolved at the time of their passage. In any case, R.A. 8249 has preserved the accuseds right to appeal to the Supreme Court to review questions of law. On the removal of the intermediate review facts, the Supreme Court still has the power of review to determine if the presumption of innocence has been convincingly overcome. Another point. The challenged law does not violate the one-title-one-subject provisions of the Constitution. Much emphasis is placed on the wording in the title of the law that it defines the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction when what it allegedly does is to expand its jurisdiction. The expansion in the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, if it can be considered as such, does not have to be expressly stated in the title of the law because such is the necessary consequence of the amendments. The requirement that every bill must only have one subject expressed in the title is satisfied if the title is comprehensive enough, as in this case, to include subjects related to the general purpose which the statute seeks to achieve.viii[58] Such rule is severally interpreted and should be given a practical rather than a technical construction. There is here sufficient compliance with such requirement, since the title of R.A. 8249 expresses the general subject (involving the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and the amendment of P.D. 1606, as amended) and all the provisions of the law are germane to that general subject. The Congress, in

employing the word define in the title of the law, acted within its powers since Section 2, Article VIII of the Constitution itself empowers the legislative body to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of various courts. There being no unconstitutional infirmity in both the subject amendatory provision of Section 4 and the retroactive procedural application of the law as provided in Section 7 R.A. No. 8249, we shall now determine whether under the allegations in the Informations, it is the Sandiganbayan or Regional Trial Court which has jurisdiction over the multiple murder case against herein petitioner and intervenors. The jurisdiction of a court is defined by the Constitution or statute. The elements of that definition must appear in the complaint or information so as to ascertain which court has jurisdiction over a case. Hence the elementary rule that the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information, and not by the evidence presented by the parties at the trial. As stated earlier, the multiple murder charge against petitioner and intervenors falls under Section 4 [paragraph b] of R.A. 8249. Section 4 requires that the offense charged must be committed by the offender in relation to his office in order for the Sandiganbayan to have jurisdiction over it. This jurisdictional requirement is in accordance with Section 5, Article XIII of the 1973 Constitution which mandated that the Sandiganbayan shall have jurisdiction over criminal cases committed by public officers and employees, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations, in relation to their office as may be determined by law. This constitutional mandate was reiterated in the new (1987) Constitution when it declared in Section 4 thereof that the Sandiganbayan shall continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law. The remaining question to be resolved then is whether the offense of multiple murder was committed in relation to the office of the accused PNP officers. In People vs. Montejo, we held that an offense is said to have been committed in relation to the office if it (the offense) is intimately connected with the office of the offender and perpetrated while he was in the performance of his official functions. This intimate relation between the offense charged and the discharge of official duties must be alleged in the Information. As to how the offense charged be stated in the information, Section 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court mandates: SEC. 9. Cause of Accusation. The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense must be stated in ordinary and concise language without repetition not necessarily in the terms of the statute defining the offense, but in such form as is

125 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper judgment. (Emphasis supplied) As early as 1954, we pronounced that the factor that characterizes the charge is the actual recital of the facts. The real nature of the criminal charges is determined not from the caption or preamble of the information nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, they being conclusions of law, but by the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information. The noble object of written accusations cannot be overemphasized. This was explained in U.S. v. Karelsen: The object of this written accusations was First, To furnish the accused with such a description of the charge against him as will enable him to make his defense, and second, to avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against a further prosecution for the same cause, and third, to inform the court of the facts alleged so that it may decide whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction if one should be had. In order that this requirement may be satisfied, facts must be stated, not conclusions of law Every crime is made up of certain acts and intent these must be set forth in the complaint with reasonable particularity of time, place, names (plaintiff and defendant) and circumstances. In short, the complaint must contain a specific allegation of every fact and circumstance necessary to constitute the crime charged. (Emphasis supplied) It is essential, therefore, that the accused be informed of the facts that are imputed to him as he is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense. Applying these legal principles and doctrines to the present case, we find the amended informations for murder against herein petitioner and intervenors wanting of specific factual averments to show the intimate relation/connection between the offense charged and the discharge of official function of the offenders. In the present case, one of the eleven (11) amended informations for murder reads: AMENDED INFORMATION The undersigned Special Prosecution Officer III, Office of the Ombudsman hereby accuses CHIEF INSP MICHAEL RAY AQUINO, CHIEF INSP ERWIN T. VILLACORTE SENIOR INSP JOSELITO T. ESQUIVEL. INSP RICARDO G. DANDAN SPO4 VICENTE P. ARNADO, SPO4 ROBERTO F. LANGCAUON, SPO2 VIRGILIO V. PARAGAS, SPO2 ROLANDO R. JIMENEZ, SPO1 WILFREDO C. CUARTERO, SPO1 ROBERTO O. AGBALOG, SPO1 OSMUNDO B. CARINO, CHIEF SUPT. JEWEL F. CANSON, CHIEF SUPT. ROMEO M. ACOP, CHIEF SUPT.

PANFILO M. LACSON, SENIOR SUPT. FRANCISCO G. ZUBIA, JR., SUPT. ALMARIO A. HILARIO, CHIEF INSP. CESAR O. MANCAO III, CHIEF INSP. GIL L. MENESES, SENIOR INISP. GLENN DUMLAO, SENIOR INSP. ROLANDO ANDUYAN, INSP. CEASAR TANNAGAN, SPO3 WILLY NUAS, SPO3 CICERO S. BACOLOD, PO2 NORBERTO LASAGA, PO2 LEONARDO GLORIA and PO2 ALEJANDRO G. LIWANAG of the crime of Murder as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code committed as follows: That on or about May 18, 1995 in Mariano Marcos Avenue, Quezon City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused CHIEF INISP. MICHAEL RAY AQUINO, CHIEF INSP. ERWIN T. VILLACORTE, SENIOR INSP. JOSELITO T. ESQUIVEL, INSP. RICARDO G. DANDAN, SPO4 VICENTE P. ARNADO SPO4 ROBERTO F. LANGCAUON, SPO2 VIRGILIO V. PARAGAS, SPO2 ROLANDO R. JIMENEZ, SPO1 WILFREDO C. CUARTERO, SPO1 ROBERTO O. AGBALOG, and SPO1 OSMUNDO B. CARINO all taking advantage of their public and official positions as officers and members of the Philippine National Police and committing the acts herein alleged in relation to their public office, conspiring with intent to kill and using firearms with treachery, evident premeditation and taking advantage of their superior strengths did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot JOEL AMORA, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds which caused his instantaneous death to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the said victim. That accused CHIEF SUPT. JEWEL F. CANSON CHIEF SUPT. ROMEO M. ACOP CHIEF SUPT. PANFILO M. LACSON, SENIOR SUPT. FRANCISCO G. ZUBIA, JR. SUPT. ALMARIO A. HILARIO, CHIEF INSP. CESAR O. MANCAO II CHIEF INSP. GIL L. MENESES, SENIOR INSP. GLENN DUMLAO, SENIOR INSP. ROLANDO ANDUYAN, INSP. CEASAR TANNAGAN SPO3 WILLY NUAS SPO3 CICERO S. BACOLOD, PO2 ALEJANDRO G. LIWANAG committing the acts in relation to office as officers and members of the Philippine National Police are charged herein as accessories after-the-fact for concealing the crime herein above alleged by among others falsely representing that there were no arrests made during the raid conducted by the accused herein at Superville Subdivision, Paraaque, Metro Manila on or about the early dawn of May 18, 1995. CONTRARY TO LAW While the above-quoted information states that the above-named principal accused committed the crime of murder in relation to their public office, there is, however, no specific allegation of facts that the shooting of the victim by the said principal accused was intimately related to the discharge of their official duties as police officers. Likewise, the amended information does not indicate that the said accused arrested and investigated the victim and then killed the latter while in their custody.

126 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

Even the allegations concerning the criminal participation of herein petitioner and intervenors as among the accessories after-the-fact, the amended information is vague on this. It is alleged therein that the said accessories concealed the crime herein-above alleged by, among others, falsely representing that there were no arrests made during the raid conducted by the accused herein at Superville Subdivision, Paraaque, Metro Manila, on or about the early dawn of May 18, 1995. The sudden mention of the arrests made during the raid conducted by the accused surprises the reader. There is no indication in the amended information that the victim was one of those arrested by the accused during the raid. Worse, the raid and arrests were allegedly conducted at Superville Subdivision, Paraaque, Metro Manila but, as alleged in the immediately preceding paragraph of the amended information, the shooting of the victim by the principal accused occurred in Mariano Marcos Avenue, Quezon City. How the raid, arrests and shooting happened in two places far away from each other is puzzling. Again, while there is the allegation in the amended information that the said accessories committed the offense in relation to office as officers and members of the (PNP), we, however, do not see the intimate connection between the offense charged and the accuseds official functions, which, as earlier discussed, is an essential element in determining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. The stringent requirement that the charge be set forth with such particularity as will reasonably indicate the exact offense which the accused is alleged to have committed in relation to his office was, sad to say, not satisfied. We believe that the mere allegation in the amended information that the offense was committed by the accused public officer in relation to his office is not sufficient. That phrase is merely a conclusion of law, not a factual averment that would show the close intimacy between the offense charged and the discharge of the accuseds official duties. In People vs. Magallanes, where the jurisdiction between the Regional Trial Court and the Sandiganbayan was at issue, we ruled: It is an elementary rule that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information and not by the result of evidence after trial. In (People vs. ) Montejo (108 Phil 613 [1960] ), where the amended information alleged Leroy S. Brown, City Mayor of Basilan City, as such, has organized groups of police patrol and civilian commandos consisting of regular policemen and x x x special policemen, appointed and provided by him with pistols and high power guns and then established a camp x x x at Tipo-tipo which is under his command x x x supervision and control where his co-defendants were stationed, entertained criminal complaints and conducted the corresponding investigations, as well as assumed the authority to arrest and detain

persons without due process of law and without bringing them to the proper court, and that in line with this set-up established by said Mayor of Basilan City as such, and acting upon his orders his co-defendants arrested and maltreated Awalin Tebag who died in consequence thereof. we held that the offense charged was committed in relation to the office of the accused because it was perpetrated while they were in the performance, though improper or irregular of their official functions and would not have been committed had they not held their office, besides, the accused had no personal motive in committing the crime, thus, there was an intimate connection between the offense and the office of the accused. Unlike in Montejo, the informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 15562 and 15563 in the court below do not indicate that the accused arrested and investigated the victims and then killed the latter in the course of the investigation. The informations merely allege that the accused, for the purpose of extracting or extorting the sum of P353,000.00 abducted, kidnapped and detained the two victims, and failing in their common purpose, they shot and killed the said victims. For the purpose of determining jurisdiction, it is these allegations that shall control, and not the evidence presented by the prosecution at the trial. In the aforecited case of People vs. Montejo, it is noteworthy that the phrase committed in relation to public office does not appear in the information, which only signifies that the said phrase is not what determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. What is controlling is the specific factual allegations in the information that would indicate the close intimacy between the discharge of the accuseds official duties and the commission of the offense charged, in order to qualify the crime as having been committed in relation to public office. Consequently, for failure to show in the amended informations that the charge of murder was intimately connected with the discharge of official functions of the accused PNP officers, the offense charged in the subject criminal cases is plain murder and, therefore, within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court, not the Sandiganbayan. WHEREFORE, the constitutionality of Sections 4 and 7 of R.A. 8249 is hereby sustained. The Addendum to the March 5, 1997 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan is REVERSED. The Sandiganbayan is hereby directed to transfer Criminal Cases Nos. 23047 to 23057 (for multiple murder) to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City which has exclusive original jurisdiction over said cases. SO ORDERED.

127 Civ Pro

jurisdiction

Davide, Jr., C.J., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.

128 Civ Pro

jurisdiction