The Makati City regional trial court (RTC) has vacated and set aside its April 25, 2022 ruling against the P34.3 billion reclamation and horizontal development of 318 hectares along Manila Bay for failure of the complainant to implead the Office of the President as an indispensable party in the case.
In an order issued last Aug. 4, RTC Judge Rommel O. Baybay said: “For petitioners’ failure to implead the Office of the President as public respondent, the decision is premature. The decision dated 25 April 2022 is hereby ordered VACATED and SET ASIDE for being premature.”
Vacated and set aside was the decision that effectively voided the Aug. 4, 2017 joint venture agreement (JVA) between the City of Manila and Waterfront Manila Premier Development Corporation (Waterfront) on the P34.3 billion, 318-hectare reclamation project for alleged lack of competitive bidding.
The civil case against the JVA was filed by Asean Seas Resources and Construction Development Corporation (Asean Seas) against the Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA), then Public Estates Authority (PEA), the City of Manila, and Waterfront.
Asean Seas claimed that the reclamation project awarded to Waterfront overlapped the former’s project award issued in 1991 by PEA.
When the RTC ruled in favor of Asean Seas, the City of Manila, PRA and Waterfront filed their separate motions for reconsideration.
Among other legal issues, PRA in its motion told the trial court that the 1991 award to Asean Seas had been revoked by the Office of the President and there was no violation of any competitive bidding in the award of the project to Waterfront.
Also, PRA pointed out that the proceedings on the civil case filed by Asean Seas before the trial court “are void for failure to implead the Office of the President as an indispensable party.”
The City of Manila in its motion said that “no grave abuse of discretion may be imputed to the PRA in revoking petitioner’s (Asean Seas) award, and the right of the city government and Waterfront over the Manila Reclamation Project is valid under prevailing laws and rules and regulations.”
For its part, Waterfront said that there was no abuse of discretion in revoking the award given to Asean Seas which did not acquire any vested right on the reclamation project “for failing to comply with the terms and conditions of its supposed notice of award.”
Waterfront also said that the Office of the President should have been impleaded in the civil case as an indispensable party.
In its order, the RTC said that “pursuant to Executive Order No. 525 dated 14 February 1979, all reclamation projects shall be approved by the President of the Philippines upon recommendation of the Public Estates Authority (now PRA).
“Also, based on the PEA Board issued Resolution No. 811, Series of 1991, one of the requirements is the approval of the President, to wit: xxx (e) that the award shall be subject to the final approval of the President of the Philippines xxx,” it said.
Despite opposition from Asean Seas, the trial court granted the motions. Applying the rules of court and previous rulings of the Supreme Court (SC), the RTC said: “The Office of the President is an indispensable party. In the absence of the indispensable party in the instant case, the assailed decision should be vacated.”
The RTC ruled:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents’ (PRA, City of Manila, Waterfront) motions for reconsideration are GRANTED.
“The decision dated 25 April 2022 is hereby ordered VACATED and SET ASIDE for being premature.
“The Office of the President is hereby impleaded as public respondent in this case. The Petitioner (Asean Seas) is directed to coordinate with the Branch Sheriff/Process Server to serve a copy of the Petition and its Annexes upon the public respondent Office of the President. SO ORDERED.”