Facts:

The case involves the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) and Elpidio Uy, who operates under the name Edison Development and Construction. The dispute arose from a contract for the Heritage Park Project, which was part of the BCDA's initiative to convert military reservations into productive uses as mandated by Republic Act No. 7227, also known as the Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992. This Act was enacted on March 13, 1992, to facilitate the conversion of military bases, including Clark and Subic, into alternative productive uses. The BCDA was created to oversee this conversion and to raise funds through the sale of military camp properties in Metro Manila.

In 1996, after a public bidding process, the BCDA's Project Manager, the Public Estates Authority (PEA), entered into a Landscaping and Construction Agreement (LCA) with Uy for the Heritage Park Project. The LCA required Uy to complete his work within 450 calendar days. However, delays o...

Facts:

1. Creation of BCDA: Republic Act No. 7227 (RA 7227), known as the Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992, created the Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA) to convert military reservations into productive uses.
2. Heritage Park Project: As part of its mandate, BCDA initiated the Heritage Park Project, involving the development of a portion of Fort Bonifacio.
3. Contract with Respondent: The Public Estates Authority (PEA), acting as project manager for BCDA, entered into a Landscaping and Construction Agreement (LCA) with respondent Elpidio Uy on November 20, 1996.
4. Delays and Termination: Disputes arose over delays in the project. PEA terminated the LCA on November 29, 1999, prompting Uy to file a civil case for injunction and damages against BCDA and other petitioners.
5. Temporary Restraining Order (TRO): The Parañaque Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued a TRO, restraining BCDA from excluding Uy from the project. BCDA challenged the RTC’s jurisdiction, citing Section 21 of RA 7227, which prohibits courts from issuing injunctive writs against BCDA projects except the Supreme Court.
6. Court of Appeals Decision: The CA dismissed BCDA’s petition, ruling that the TRO had become moot but upheld the RTC’s jurisdiction to hear the injunction case.

Issue:

1. Whether the RTC has jurisdiction to hear and decide an injunction case against BCDA projects under RA 7227.
2. Whether the CA erred in dismissing BCDA’s petition for certiorari and prohibition.
3. Whether the respondent’s relief should be limited to a claim for damages, not injunction.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)