G.R. No. 213080 - Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc. vs. Abella-Aquino

Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc. (Harbour Centre) operates a port in the Manila Harbour Centre.
La Filipina Uygongco Corporation and Philippine Foremost Milling Corporation (collectively, La Filipina) are engaged in importing various products such as fertilizers, milk and dairy products, soybean meal, trading sugar, wheat, and animal feeds.
In 1997, negotiations began for La Filipina to be a locator at Manila Harbour Centre, culminating in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) dated November 19, 2004, outlining rights and obligations including berthing, dredging, and port and cargo handling charges.

Harbour Centre was to regularly dredge the navigational channel and berthing area to maintain a depth of -11.5 meters Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW).
La Filipina was granted priority berthing rights.
A formula was set for computing port and cargo handling charges and increases thereto.

By 2008, several of La Filipina’s vessels touched the bottom of the berthing area.
On November 10, 2009, La Filipina filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for specific performance, damages, and compliance with maritime laws and the MOA, alleging:

Harbour Centre’s failure to dredge regularly to the required depth causing damage to vessels.
Violation of priority berthing rights.
Improper increase of port and cargo handling charges not in accordance with the MOA’s formula.

Harbour Centre denied the allegations and claimed entitlement to rental and overhang charges for use of cargo space by La Filipina.

The RTC ruled in favor of La Filipina, finding Harbour Centre failed to comply with the MOA, violated priority berthing rights, and overcharged La Filipina for port charges.
Hydrographic surveys confirmed inadequate depth of -11.5 meters MLLW.
Harbour Centre’s counter-claims for rental fees were denied based on Philippine Ports Authority issuances exempting storage areas from rental payments.
Remedies and damages ordered against Harbour Centre included:

Dredging the berthing area and navigational channel to -11.5 meters MLLW within 15 days.
Abiding by MOA formulas for port and cargo charges.
Honoring priority berthing rights.
Payment of liquidated damages of US$ 2,000/day from December 6, 2004, plus legal interest.
Actual damages amounting to PHP 7,333,971.90 plus interest.
Exemplary damages of PHP 10,000,000 and attorney’s fees of PHP 10,000,000.
Crediting amounts paid under protest by La Filipina for excess port and cargo charges plus interest.
Release of deposited excess amounts to La Filipina by the Clerk of Court.
Permanent injunction enjoining Harbour Centre from violating MOA provisions.
Dismissal of Harbour Centre’s counterclaim.

La Filipina filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration (October 28, 2011) for further liabilities due to storage and trucking costs.
Harbour Centre filed a Notice of Appeal (November 2, 2011).
La Filipina filed a Motion for Partial Execution Pending Appeal (November 9, 2011) requesting immediate execution of dredging, payment of damages, and crediting of charges paid under protest.
Harbour Centre opposed the motion citing lack of good reasons, no evidence of vessel damage, and loss of jurisdiction of RTC due to pendency of appeal.
RTC granted the Motion for Partial Execution Pending Appeal (February 28, 2012) directing:

A Writ of Execution was issued on March 8, 2012.
La Filipina entered into a dredging contract with F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc. (FFC Cruz) in 2014 after subsequent motions and orders.
Harbour Centre’s motions to reconsider and quash writ were denied by RTC.

Harbour Centre questioned the validity of the partial execution writ in CA.
On March 3, 2014, the CA dismissed the petition as moot, citing lack of justiciable controversy since records were already elevated to CA.
CA refused to issue prohibition and noted implementation status of execution orders.
CA denied motion for reconsideration on June 16, 2014.

Harbour Centre filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the partial execution pending appeal.
Harbour Centre argued lack of good reasons for execution, absence of vessel or supply chain damage evidence, and that posting a bond by La Filipina is insufficient to justify execution.
It also questioned the jurisdiction of RTC and contested the validity of the dredging contract entered into by La Filipina.
La Filipina maintained that immediate dredging was urgent to prevent vessel damage and supply chain disruption and supported the execution citing hydrographic surveys.
La Filipina filed a Motion to Dismiss Petition on Grounds of Forum Shopping alleging Harbour Centre was litigating issues in multiple forums.
Harbour Centre opposed, contending the cases involve different issues and prayers.

Execution pending appeal is valid only for immediate dredging of the navigation channel and berthing area to -11.5 meters MLLW.
It is invalidated for the crediting and release of port and cargo handling charges paid under protest by La Filipina.
Harbour Centre did not commit forum shopping.

Whether the Regional Trial Court’s grant of motion for partial execution pending appeal and issuance of writ of execution was valid.
Whether Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc. committed forum shopping by questioning the partial execution pending appeal in multiple cases.