Case Digest (G.R. No. 116910)
Facts:
International Container Terminal Services, Inc., et al. v. Court of Appeals, Hon. Angel V. Colet, Manila Pilots Association, et al., G.R. No. 116910, October 18, 1995, Supreme Court Second Division, Francisco, J., writing for the Court.
On February 3, 1988 the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) issued Administrative Order No. 02-88, “Implementing Guidelines on Open Pilotage Service,” opening pilotage services to all licensed and accredited harbor pilots regardless of membership in existing pilot associations (issued pursuant to Sec. 6A(VIII) of Presidential Decree No. 857 and PPA Board Resolution No. 860). In response, the United Harbor Pilots Association of the Philippines, Inc. (United Harbor) and private respondent Manila Pilots Association (Manila Pilots) sought reconsideration from the Acting Secretary of Transportation and Communications and the PPA; when unsuccessful they filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a temporary restraining order in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Civil Case No. 88-44726.
On October 26, 1989 the RTC (Judge Flojo) granted the petition in Civil Case No. 88-44726, holding that respondents acted in excess of jurisdiction and declaring PPA Administrative Order No. 02-88 null and void, and making permanent the preliminary injunction. The PPA’s appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) was dismissed as raising a purely legal question (CA decision dated January 7, 1992), and a subsequent petition for review to the Supreme Court was denied with finality on June 8, 1992 (G.R. No. 100109).
Despite the finality of the RTC judgment recognizing the exclusive right of United Harbor and Manila Pilots to provide pilotage services, petitioner International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (International Container) entered into a contract with the PPA and took over pilotage services in the Manila International Port (MICT/MIP) area on October 28, 1992. United Harbor and Manila Pilots filed contempt petitions against PPA officials and International Container for violating the RTC injunction; those contempt petitions remained unresolved because the Office of the Solicitor General elevated to the Supreme Court (docketed as G.R. No. 107720) the question whether the lower court still had jurisdiction to entertain the contempt proceedings in view of the finality of Civil Case No. 88-44726.
While the contempt matter and G.R. No. 107720 were pending, Manila Pilots filed (1) Civil Case No. 93-66024 (Branch 32, RTC Manila) seeking damages for alleged usurpation of pilotage in the South and North Harbors and in Limay, Bataan (except the MIP) for the period April 19–29, 1993; and (2) Civil Case No. 93-66143 (Branch 47, RTC Manila), a petition for mandamus, prohibition with preliminary mandatory injunction and damages to enjoin International Container from exercising pilotage in the MIP area and to restore Manila Pilots’ exclusive rights. On January 20, 1994 the RTC in Civil Case No. 93-66143 granted the writ, reinstating Manila Pilots to exclusive pilotage in the MIP and commanding International Container to cease its activities.
International Container challenged the RTC order in Civil Case No. 93-66143 by filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP N...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was private respondent Manila Pilots guilty of forum shopping in filing Civil Case No. 93-66143 (and related actions) after the finality of RTC Civil Case No. 88-44726?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the RTC’s grant of the writ (i.e., is there reversible error in the upheld injunction and restoration of ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)