G.R. No. 169914 - Asia's Emerging Dragon Corp. vs. Department of Transportation and Communications

Asia’s Emerging Dragon Corporation (AEDC) submitted an unsolicited proposal in 1994 to the Philippine government through the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) and Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) to develop the Ninoy Aquino International Airport International Passenger Terminal III (NAIA IPT III) under the Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) Law.
AEDC was recognized as the original proponent by NEDA, ICC, and other government authorities, leading to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with DOTC in 1996.
The government invited “comparative or competitive proposals” pursuant to Section 4-A of the BOT Law, whereby the People’s Air Cargo & Warehousing Co., Inc. Consortium (Paircargo), later Philippine International Airport Terminals Co., Inc. (PIATCO), submitted a competing proposal.

Both AEDC and Paircargo/PIATCO proposed to build the terminal with no cost to the government and pay shares of gross revenues. However, AEDC offered PhP135 million guaranteed payments over 27 years, whereas Paircargo/PIATCO offered PhP17.75 billion.
The Pre-Qualification Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) considered Paircargo/PIATCO’s proposal more advantageous and accepted it, giving AEDC 30 working days to match it. AEDC failed to exercise its matching right within the period.
AEDC filed a case for nullity of PBAC proceedings but later joined public respondents in a joint motion to dismiss that case, leading to its dismissal with prejudice in 1999.

PIATCO proceeded with construction; however, this Court declared the award to PIATCO and all agreements null and void due to PIATCO’s failure to meet financial qualifications and material amendments contrary to public policy (Agan case).
The government initiated expropriation proceedings to acquire the constructed NAIA IPT III facilities, supported by Republic Act No. 8974, for just compensation to PIATCO.
AEDC filed a petition for mandamus and prohibition to be recognized as the rightful original proponent, which was dismissed for lack of merit in an April 18, 2008 Decision.
AEDC and Salacnib Baterina separately filed Motions for Reconsideration of the April 2008 Decision.

Whether AEDC, as the original proponent of the unsolicited NAIA IPT III project, has vested legal and contractual rights under the BOT Law and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) entitling it to the award and implementation of the project.
Whether the disqualification of PIATCO as a bidder means that AEDC should automatically be awarded the NAIA IPT III Project.
Whether government’s initiation of expropriation and possession of existing NAIA IPT III facilities precludes AEDC’s claim to operate or complete the project.
Whether the dismissal of Civil Case No. 66213 bars AEDC’s petition by reason of res judicata.
Whether the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between DOTC and AEDC creates enforceable rights obligating government to award the project to AEDC.
Whether Baterina has legal standing and whether issues of ownership of NAIA Terminal 3 and compensation to PIATCO remain justiciable.
Whether the procedural filing of AEDC’s petition was timely or barred by prescription.