Case Digest (G.R. No. 176657)
Facts:
Department of Foreign Affairs and Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No. 176657, September 01, 2010, Supreme Court First Division, Leonardo‑De Castro, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) sought certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 with a prayer for TRO/preliminary injunction to annul the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig City, Branch 71, presided by Hon. Franco T. Falcon (respondent judge), Order dated February 14, 2007 granting respondent BCA International Corporation (BCA)’s application for preliminary injunction and to prevent enforcement of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated February 23, 2007.The controversy arose from a Build‑Operate‑Transfer agreement (the MRP/V Project) originally awarded to BCA (via project company Philippine Passport Corporation, PPC) to implement machine‑readable passport and visa systems under the BOT Law (Republic Act No. 6957, as amended by R.A. No. 7718). After alleged delays and disputes over BCA/PPC’s capitalization and performance, DFA issued a Notice of Termination to BCA/PPC on December 9, 2005. BCA responded with its own Notice of Default and filed a Request for Arbitration (April 7, 2006) with the Philippine Dispute Resolution Center, Inc. (PDRCI) invoking the Amended BOT Agreement’s dispute settlement clause.
Meanwhile the DFA and BSP entered a separate arrangement and the BSP solicited bids for an e‑Passport Project under the Government Procurement Reform Act (R.A. No. 9184). Fearing that the BSP/DFA e‑Passport procurement would moot its remedies, BCA filed with the RTC a Petition for Interim Relief under Sec. 28 of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act (R.A. No. 9285), seeking a TRO and preliminary injunction to enjoin awarding or implementing any new or similar electronic passport/visa project pending arbitration. The RTC issued a TRO (January 23, 2007) and, after hearings, granted the preliminary injunction (Order dated February 14, 2007) and issued the writ (February 23, 2007).
DFA and BSP filed a Rule 65 petition with the Supreme Court (March 2, 2007) alleging grave abuse of discretion: (1) the RTC had no jurisdiction to enjoin a national government project under R.A. No. 8975; and (2) BCA had neither a clear right nor would suffer grave and irreparable injury warranting injunction. The Court issued a TRO against implementation of the RTC orde...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the respondent judge gravely abuse his discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when he issued the assailed order effectively enjoining the implementation of the e‑Passport Project as a national government project under R.A. No. 8975?
- Did the respondent judge gravely abuse his discretion in granting BCA’s interim relief because BCA had not established a clear right that can be protected by an injunction?
- Did the respondent judge gravely abuse his discretion in granting BCA’s interim relief because BCA failed to show it would sustain grave and irrep...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)