Facts:

The case titled Asia's Emerging Dragon Corporation v. Department of Transportation and Communications, Secretary Leandro R. Mendoza, and Manila International Airport Authority (G.R. No. 169914) is closely intertwined with Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals and Salacnib Baterina (G.R. No. 174166), both of which were decided on April 18, 2008. At the center of these consolidated cases is the project for the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) International Passenger Terminal III (IPT III).

In the early 1990s, six prominent business figures formed Asia's Emerging Dragon Corporation (AEDC) and submitted an unsolicited proposal for the construction and operation of NAIA IPT III. The proposal was accepted, but subsequent bidding led to the selection of the Paircargo Consortium (renamed Philippine International Airport Terminals Co., Inc. or PIATCO) for the project. However, concerns regarding PIATCO’s financial capacity prompted AEDC to challenge this award

...

Facts:

Background and Project Conceptualization

• The project at issue is the Ninoy Aquino International Airport International Passenger Terminal III (NAIA IPT III), originally conceived as a Build-Operate-and-Transfer (BOT) project.
• In 1993, prominent business leaders formed Asia’s Emerging Dragon Corporation (AEDC) to pursue the development of NAIA IPT III.
• AEDC submitted an unsolicited proposal to the government through the Department of Trade and Communications (later DOTC) and the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) under the provisions of Republic Act (RA) 6957 as amended by RA 7718 (the BOT Law).

Bidding and Award Process

• The DOTC issued invitations for competitive or comparative proposals by publishing notices, requiring interested proponents to submit three sealed envelopes containing prequalification documents, technical proposals, and financial proposals.
• A consortium known as the Paircargo Consortium (comprising entities such as People’s Air Cargo and Warehousing Co., Inc., among others) submitted a competitive proposal.
• AEDC raised objections regarding the financial capability and prequalification of the challenger but was given a 30-day period to match the lower price proposal submitted by Paircargo.
• AEDC ultimately failed to match the bid, and the contract for the project was awarded to the predecessor of respondent PIATCO.
• Subsequent proceedings (notably in the Agan and Gingoyon cases) nullified the award on grounds including the financial disqualification of the Paircargo Consortium and substantial, material amendments in the concession agreements that rendered them contrary to public policy.

Expropriation and Subsequent Legal Proceedings

• Despite earlier nullification, the government initiated expropriation proceedings in the Gingoyon case to take over the nearly completed NAIA IPT III facility constructed by PIATCO.
• The government deposited an amount approximating the proffered valuation (over ₱3 billion) to satisfy the requirement that just compensation be paid before possession could be taken.
• Multiple petitions, motions for intervention, and related actions followed, involving parties such as legislators (e.g., Baterina) who questioned the validity of the expropriation and PIATCO’s entitlement to compensation.
• AEDC subsequently filed a petition for mandamus and prohibition (G.R. No. 169914) asserting its exclusive, clear, and vested statutory right as the original proponent to be awarded the project.
• In parallel, the Republic (through separate litigation consolidated under G.R. No. 174166) challenged certain procedural orders and sought to prevent further action on the expropriation, particularly intervening motions and the reversal of the government’s actions regarding the NAIA IPT III facility.

AEDC’s Allegations and Government’s Position

• AEDC contended that, as the recognized and unchallenged original proponent of the unsolicited proposal, it had a statutory right under Section 4-A of RA 6957 (as amended by RA 7718) and its Implementing Rules to be awarded the project once no qualified lower bid existed.
• AEDC argued that government agencies were obligated to finalize the award in its favor by executing the approved draft concession agreement and refraining from negotiating with third parties.
• The government maintained that even though the award was declared null and void due to defective prequalification and irregularities in bidding, the subsequent expropriation procedures (with a mandatory payment of just compensation to PIATCO) were proper and should not automatically confer the project award to AEDC.

Procedural History and Prior Resolutions

• Earlier related litigation (notably Civil Case No. 66213 in the Regional Trial Court) was dismissed with prejudice after the parties reached a compromise, which raised issues of res judicata when AEDC later revived its claim.
• The Supreme Court’s prior decisions in Agan and Gingoyon established that the government must pay PIATCO just compensation before taking over the facility, and they clarified the limited, conditional rights of an original proponent in unsolicited proposals.
• The filings in G.R. Nos. 169914 and 174166 emerged after the definitive rulings in Agan and Gingoyon, leading to further debates on jurisdictional and procedural matters.

Issue:

Issues Presented in G.R. No. 169914 (AEDC’s Petition)

• Whether AEDC, as the recognized original proponent who submitted an unsolicited proposal, possesses an exclusive, clear, and vested statutory right to be awarded the NAIA IPT III project.
• Whether respondents (DOTC, MIAA, and related government entities) are statutorily obligated to conclude the award exclusively in favor of AEDC by executing the approved concession agreement and ceasing negotiations with third parties.

Issues Presented in G.R. No. 174166 (Republic’s and Intervenor’s Petition)

• Whether private respondent Baterina (and similar intervenors) has the requisite legal standing to challenge the expropriation proceedings and government's actions regarding NAIA IPT III.
• Whether the expropriation proceedings—specifically, the implementation of the writ of possession and the valuation leading to payment of just compensation—are proper and in accordance with applicable law, including RA 8974.
• Whether the actions taken by the lower courts and the Court of Appeals (for example, the issuance and subsequent lifting of a temporary restraining order) are consistent with the final, controlling Supreme Court decisions in Agan and Gingoyon, or if they are moot and academic.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)