Case Digest (G.R. No. 141949)
Facts:
In Ceferino Padua v. Hon. Santiago Ranada, G.R. No. 141949, and Eduardo C. Zialcita v. Toll Regulatory Board and Citra Metro Manila Tollways Corporation, G.R. No. 151108, both decided October 14, 2002 by the Third Division under Justice Sandoval-Gutierrez, petitioners challenge Resolution No. 2001-89 issued by the Toll Regulatory Board (TRB). On February 27, 2001, Citra Metro Manila Tollways Corporation (CITRA), as investor under the Supplemental Toll Operation Agreement (STOA) of November 27, 1995, applied for an interim toll rate adjustment due to a significant currency devaluation. When the TRB delayed action, CITRA filed an Urgent Motion for Provisional Approval under Rule 10, Section 3 of the TRB Rules of Procedure, later withdrawing it to invoke the Board’s own initiative power. On November 9, 2001, an en banc Board of four directors and the Executive Director approved provisional rate increases effective January 1, 2002, after publication on December 17, 24, and 31, 2001.Case Digest (G.R. No. 141949)
Facts:
- Consolidated Cases Background
- Two petitions filed: G.R. No. 141949 (Padua) and G.R. No. 151108 (Zialcita).
- Central issue: Validity of Toll Regulatory Board (TRB) Resolution No. 2001-89, authorizing provisional toll rate adjustments for the Metro Manila Skyway, effective January 1, 2002.
- TRB Resolution and Procedure
- Resolution No. 2001-89 granted interim adjustments under Section 7.04(3) of the Supplemental Toll Operation Agreement (STOA) and Rule 10, Section 3 of the TRB Rules of Procedure.
- Rates set for Classes 1–3, both elevated and at-grade portions, with implementation in two stages; published December 17, 24, and 31, 2001.
- CITRA’s Pleadings and TRB Actions
- February 27, 2001: Citra Metro Manila Tollways Corporation (CITRA) filed for interim adjustment under STOA’s “significant currency devaluation” clause.
- October 9, 2001: CITRA filed Urgent Motion for Provisional Approval (Rule 10, Sec. 3). November 9, 2001: TRB granted withdrawal of that motion and issued Resolution No. 2001-89.
- Supreme Court Petitions
- Padua (toll payer) filed an Urgent Motion for TRO in his existing mandamus petition (G.R. No. 141949), claiming due process violation, improper issuance by Executive Director only, and lack of standing by CITRA.
- Zialcita (Congressman/taxpayer) filed a Petition for Prohibition (G.R. No. 151108), asserting exorbitant rates, lack of public hearing/publishing authority, and unconstitutionality of Rule 10, Sec. 3.
Issues:
- Procedural Proper Remedies
- Is Padua’s urgent TRO in a mandamus petition a proper vehicle to challenge Resolution No. 2001-89?
- Is Zialcita’s petition for prohibition appropriate given available administrative remedies and primary administrative jurisdiction?
- Validity and Process of Resolution No. 2001-89
- Did TRB satisfy publication and due process requirements?
- May TRB grant provisional relief ex parte without notice/hearing under LOI 1334-A and its own Rules?
- Does “Metro Manila Skyway” under the STOA encompass the at-grade portions of the South Luzon Expressway?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)