Case Digest (G.R. No. 144062)
Facts:
The Bases Conversion and Development Authority v. Elpidio Uy, G.R. No. 144062, November 02, 2006, Supreme Court Third Division, Velasco, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are The Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) and several officials; respondent is Elpidio Uy, doing business as Edison Development and Construction. The dispute arises from works awarded to Uy under a Landscaping and Construction Agreement (LCA) for the Heritage Park Project at Fort Bonifacio, a fund-generating project implemented pursuant to Republic Act No. 7227 (the Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992) and Executive Order No. 40 (1992).
RA 7227 established the BCDA (Mar. 13, 1992) and, under EO No. 40 (Dec. 8, 1992), designated portions of Metro Manila military camps (including 96 hectares at Fort Bonifacio) for conversion and sale. To finance the Project, BCDA and the Public Estates Authority (PEA) executed managing arrangements and, on September 9, 1994, a Pool Formation Trust Agreement with PNB. After public bidding, PEA awarded the LCA to respondent Uy on November 20, 1996; Uy received a Notice to Proceed on December 3, 1996, and commenced work within 14 days. The LCA required completion within 450 calendar days and contemplated vertical structures, Terrasoleum units, and landscaping. Other contractors handled horizontal development and electrification.
Construction delays occurred; PEA granted several extensions but, asserting abandonment and slippages, issued a Letter of Termination to Uy on November 29, 1999. Uy filed Civil Case No. 99-0425 for Injunction and Damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Paranaque, Branch 260. On December 14, 1999, RTC Executive Judge Helen Bautista‑Ricafort issued a 72‑hour Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining petitioners from excluding Uy from performance; after preliminary hearing the TRO was extended on December 17, 1999 for 17 additional days (the TRO’s 20‑day validity thus lapsed on January 3, 2000).
On December 27, 1999 petitioners filed a Joint Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing among others that Section 21 of RA 7227 forbids lower courts from issuing TROs or preliminary injunctions against BCDA projects and that only the Supreme Court may restrain such projects. The CA, in a July 31, 2000 decision, dismissed petitioners’ certiorari petition as moot and academic (the TRO was functus officio), held that prohibition was not the proper remedy, and concluded the RTC did not commit grave ab...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Procedural: Whether a prior motion for reconsideration is a jurisdictional prerequisite before filing a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
- Procedural: Whether the petition’s verification and certification against forum shopping were defective because only one petitioner signed and no BCDA Board Resolution was attached.
- Procedural/Substantive: Whether there was improper joinder of parties and whether petitioners could invoke Section 21 of RA 7227 absent appearance by the Office of the Solicitor General.
- Substantive: Whether the RTC, Paranaque, Branch 260 had jurisdiction to hear Civil Case No. 99‑0425 and to grant injunctive relief (including the question whether RA 7227, PD 1818, and RA 8975...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)