Case Digest (G.R. No. 187869)
Facts:
Teodulfo E. Lao, Jr., Roger A. Abaday, Zaldy O. Ocon, and Enrico D. Salcedo v. LGU of Cagayan de Oro City, Mayor Constantino Jaraula, et al., G.R. No. 187869, promulgated September 13, 2017, Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are four elected officials (three city councilors and one barangay captain) who challenged the January 27, 2009 execution of a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) contract for the redevelopment of the Agora Complex between Mega Integrated Agro-Livestock Farm Corporation (represented by its president Erwin Bryan See) and Mayor Constantino Jaraula. The project had earlier been the subject of City Ordinance No. 10557-2007 and related proceedings during the previous administration; the City Bids and Awards Committee declared no competing bids in October 2007. Petitioners alleged the contract was tainted by fraud, that Mega Farm lacked financial capacity for the P250,000,000 project, and that the contract’s exclusivity provisions violated the constitutional right to free enterprise.
On March 19, 2009 petitioners filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and preliminary injunction in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 17, Misamis Oriental. Respondents (the City government and officials, Mega Farm and See) moved to dismiss, invoking among other grounds Republic Act No. 8975 (which restricts injunctions against national government projects) and asserting petitioners lacked standing and had not paid docket fees for damages claimed. Hearings on the TRO were held March 25 and continued March 30, 2009.
The RTC issued a Resolution dated March 30, 2009 denying the TRO and dismissing the complaint, and on May 11, 2009 denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. The trial court treated the Agora BOT as a “national government project” within the ambit of RA 8975 and held petitioners failed to prove an exception; it also ruled petitioners were not parties to the contract and could not sue as taxpayers. Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court on June 3, 2009. Respondents filed comments; private respondents also contended the petition raised mixed questions of fact and law and pointed to defects in the Verification and Certifi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was it proper for petitioners to file a petition for review under Rule 45 directly with the Supreme Court?
- Was petitioners’ Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping fatally defective for lack of competent evidence of identity and improper notarization?
- Did the Regional Trial Court correctly deny the issuance of a temporary restraining order against the Agora Complex BOT Contract under Republic Act No. 8975?
- Do petitioners have locus standi to seek declaration ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)