Case Digest (G.R. No. 124130)
Facts:
Governor Pablo P. Garcia, The Province Of Cebu; Tomas R. Osmena; Mayor Alvin B. Garcia, The City Of Cebu; Allan C. Gaviola; Jose A. Guisadio; Metro Cebu Development Project Office; Bashir D. Rasuman; Romeo C. Escandor; and Landbank of the Philippines v. Hon. Jose P. Burgos; and Malayan Integrated Industries Corporation, G.R. No. 124130, June 29, 1998, Supreme Court First Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are provincial and city officials and instrumentalities (including Landbank) involved in the implementation of the Cebu South Reclamation Project (the PROJECT); respondent judge is Hon. Jose P. Burgos, presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 17, Cebu City; private respondent is Malayan Integrated Industries Corporation (Malayan), the civil plaintiff in the RTC. Petitioners sought relief from this Court by a petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court attacking three RTC orders dated February 22, 1996, March 12, 1996 and March 18, 1996 issued by Judge Burgos.
Malayan filed a complaint (Civil Case No. CEB-18292) for specific performance, declaration of nullity, damages and injunctive relief, and sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction to protect its claimed pre-emptive/right-of-first-refusal interests in earlier reclamation contracts and feasibility work. The RTC issued a TRO on February 5, 1996; after motions and hearings, Judge Burgos issued an order dated February 22, 1996 denying petitioners’ Omnibus Motion (which challenged the court's jurisdiction under P.D. No. 1818), later voluntarily inhibited himself on February 26, 1996, then rescinded that inhibition by order dated March 12, 1996, and on March 18, 1996 granted the writ of preliminary injunction subject to bond.
Petitioners contended that issuance of the TRO and the grant of preliminary injunction violated P.D. No. 1818, Sec. 1, and Supreme Court Administrative Circulars Nos. 13-93 and 68-94, which bar courts from enjoining the implementation of government infrastructure projects. Petitioners filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse o...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the RTC judge gravely abuse his discretion and act without jurisdiction in issuing the TRO and the March 18, 1996 order granting a writ of preliminary injunction in a controversy involving the Cebu South Reclamation Project in violation of P.D. No. 1818 and Supreme Court Administrative Circulars Nos. 13-93 and 68-94?
- Was the RTC judge’s February 22, 1996 order and March 18, 1996 injunction effectively deciding the case on the merits and therefore an abuse of discretion?
- Did the RTC judge gravely abuse his discretion in reversing his prior voluntary inhibition (March 12, 1996) and thus improperly continue to hear the case?
- Were petitioners’ procedural filings (Omnibus Motion; Motion for Reconsideration with Cautionary Notice) inef...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)