Case Digest (G.R. No. 189191)
Facts:
Mid-Islands Power Generation Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 189191, February 29, 2012, Supreme Court Second Division, Sereno, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner is Mid-Islands Power Generation Corporation (Mid-Islands Power); respondents include Power One Corporation (Power One), Islands Grid Network Philippines, Inc. (Islands Grid), David Tan, and Manuel Lauron. The petition challenges the Court of Appeals’ grant of a Motion for Extension to file a Rule 65 petition.
The underlying dispute began when Power One entered into Electric Supply Agreements (ESAs) with distribution cooperatives including ORMECO and CENECO and was authorized to assign its rights to a project company. Power One and several investors agreed to form Mid-Islands Power, which, by assignment, assumed Power One’s ESAs affecting the Calapan Diesel Power Plant in Oriental Mindoro. Subsequent relations soured: Power One alleged delays and contractual breaches by Mid-Islands and its partners (Pascual et al.), and in August 2006 Power One and Islands Grid barred Mid-Islands and MindoroTech Services, Inc. (MindoroTech) from the plant.
On 11 September 2006 MindoroTech and Mid-Islands filed Civil Case No. 70957-SJ in the Pasig Regional Trial Court (Pasig RTC) seeking injunctive relief to protect their rights under the ESA and related agreements. The Pasig RTC issued a 72-hour TRO; the parties agreed to a no-touch policy and interim operations under Mid-Islands and MindoroTech. Meanwhile ORMECO filed a separate action in the Calapan RTC (Civil Case No. CV-06-5689) on 20 October 2006 and obtained a TRO directing Power One to operate the plant; the Calapan sheriff removed Mid-Islands and MindoroTech and turned operation over to ORMECO, citing exigent public interest to prevent brownouts.
On 6 November 2006 the Pasig RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction allowing Mid-Islands and MindoroTech to resume operations. Enforcement of competing RTC writs led to conflict at the plant. Power One sought relief from the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 97243, contesting the territorial jurisdiction of the Pasig RTC; on 10 December 2007 the CA sustained the Pasig RTC’s order and, on 4 March 2008, denied reconsideration. The CA later declared that decision final and executory as of 2 April 2008.
Separately, the Pasig RTC proceeded to the merits in Civil Case No. 70957-SJ and on 29 September 2008 entered summary judgment making the prior preliminary injunction permanent in favor of Mid-Islands and MindoroTech, permanently enjoining Power One and Islands Grid from interfering with plant operations. Power One then sought to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 contesting that Pasig RTC order. Under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, petitions must be filed within 60 days; an amendment by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC (Resolution dated 4 December 2007, effective 27 December 2007) had deleted the express allowance of up to 15 days’ extension.
On 9 December 2008 Power One filed a Motion for Extension of Time (docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 106511) asking for 15 days to file its Rule 65 petition; the CA granted the Motion on 23 December 2008. Power One filed the petition with the CA on 23 Decembe...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, by granting Power One’s Motion for Extension to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in light of A.M. No...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)