The Supreme Court (SC) has reminded the public of a law enacted in 2000 that prohibits trial and appellate courts from issuing restraining orders or injunctions against national government projects.
It said the purposes of Republic Act No. 8975, an Act to Ensure the Expeditious Implementation and Completion of Government Infrastructure Projects, are “to avoid unnecessary increase in costs and allow the public to enjoy soonest the benefits of the projects.”
Section 3 of RA 8975 provides that only the SC can issue an injunction on projects initiated by the national government.
The SC’s reminder was contained in a resolution that denied the plea of Metro Rail Transit Corporation (MRTC) and Metro Rail Transit Holdings II, Inc. (MRTHI) to stop the Department of Transportation (DOTr) from procuring 48 new light-rail vehicles (LRVs) for Metro Rail Transit (MRT) 3 from another supplier amounting to P3.76 billion in 2013.
The SC’s resolution issued last July 20 and made public last Oct. 14, affirmed the rulings of both the Makati City regional trial court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) which both denied the plea for an injunction by MRTC and MRTHI against DOTr.
The SC described as “specious” the arguments of MRTC and MRTHI that they are entitled to an injunction because of the extreme urgency of their case that involves constitutional issue.
The issue arose from the Build-Lease-Transfer Agreement (BLTA) signed in 1997 between the Metro Rail Transit Corporation Limited (MRTCL) and the then Department of Transportation and Communications, now DOTr.
One of the provisions of the agreement barred DOTr from acquiring, procuring or using Light-Rail Vehicles (LRVs) -- train coaches in particular -- other than those provided by MRTCL which was given a right of first refusal in the supply additional train coaches in the future.
In 2007, the DOTr informed MRTC of its intention to procure 30 refurbished LRVs and inquired whether the latter would exercise its right of first refusal. DOTr did not receive any reply from MRTC.
Later in 2008, MRTC questioned DOTr’s alleged unilateral declaration of the need for additional 30 LRVs.
In 2013, DOTr opened the public bidding for the purchase of 48 LRVs. MRTC opposed the public bidding but the DOTr proceeded with belief that MRTC had abandoned its right of first refusal.
When MRTC learned that DOTr would award the contract for the supply of LRVs to CNR Dalian Locomotive & Rolling Stock, Co. Ltd., MRTC demanded an arbitration. When its plea remained unheeded, it filed a case with the Makati City RTC and sought a writ of preliminary injunction (WPI).
On Feb. 20, 2014, the RTC denied the plea for WPI. MRTC and MRTHI elevated the case to the CA which upheld the RTC’s ruling in a decision issued on July 19, 2016. MRTC and MRTHI elevated the case to the SC.
The SC said in its resolution:
“Petitioners (MRTC and MRTHI) do not question the declaration of the RTC and the CA that the MRT3 is a national government project within the definition of Section 250 of R.A. No. 8795. However, they insist that the injunction that they are asking for seeks ‘to implement, rather than to obstruct, the government project which the DOTr entered into with MRTC.’
“They contend that a WPI would stop the DOTr from committing a serious and material breach of the 1997 BLT Agreement, as well as the constitutional provisions pertaining to the principles of due process and the lawful appropriation of public funds.
“It is readily apparent that petitioners seek to restrain, prohibit or compel the bidding or awarding of the procurement of the LRVs for MRT3 in favor of other suppliers.
“The WPI that they are seeking, in the guise of a supposed interim measure of protection, squarely falls within the proscription mandated by R.A. No. 8975.
“Simply put, the RTC is indeed prohibited from issuing the WPI sought by petitioners. Petitioners likewise assert that the matter involved in this case falls under the exception to the prohibition laid down by R.A. No. 8975, i.e., that ‘the matter is one of extreme urgency involving a constitutional issue such that unless the act complained of is enjoined, grave injustice or irreparable injury would arise.’
“There is no constitutional issue involved in this case. Although the 1997 BLT Agreement involves a public service and, therefore, is imbued with public interest, the relationship between the DOTr and the MRTC is primarily contractual and their dispute involves the adjudication of contractual rights.
“Neither have petitioners proved that MRTC stands to suffer some grave and irreparable injury. While the Court understands petitioners' concerns, there is still no basis for the issuance of a WPI because, as explained by the CA, it can be compensable through the award of damages.
“As the damages alleged by them can be quantified, it cannot be considered as ‘grave and irreparable injury’ as understood in law.
“All told, the CA correctly affirmed the RTC's denial of petitioners' petition. We deem it best to refrain from ruling on the contractual dispute concerning petitioners and the DOTr since the same should be threshed out and litigated in the appropriate arbitration proceeding between them.
“WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Decision dated July 19, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 134326 is hereby AFFIRMED. Petitioners' application for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction, being ancillary to the main petition, is likewise DENIED. SO ORDERED."
TAGS: #SC #DOTr @Metro Rail