Case Digest (G.R. No. 212143)
Facts:
This is Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office v. TMA Group of Companies Pty Ltd., et al., G.R. Nos. 212143, 225457 and 236888, promulgated August 28, 2019, the Supreme Court Third Division, Reyes, A., Jr., J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) and certain of its officials; respondents are TMA Group of Companies Pty Ltd. (TMA Australia) and TMA Group Philippines, Inc. (TMA Philippines) (collectively, TMA), and, in G.R. No. 236888, Judge Joselito C. Villarosa in his capacity as Presiding Judge, RTC, Makati, Branch 66.On December 4, 2009 PCSO and TMA Australia executed a Contractual Joint Venture Agreement (CJVA) to establish a thermal coating plant in the Philippines; TMA would invest and supply paper products, while PCSO committed to procure its thermal paper and related consumables from the JV for fifty years. PCSO’s Board later suspended implementation (Aug. 20, 2010, Resolution) and sought OGCC review; OGCC Opinion No. 079 (Apr. 4, 2011) concluded the CJVA was void or at least appeared simulated and a supply contract in disguise, and that PCSO’s promise to buy for 50 years was not a valid capital contribution under JV Guidelines.
TMA sued PCSO in RTC Makati on Apr. 8, 2011 for specific performance and sought TRO/prelim. injunctions (Civil Case No. 11-310). Judge Winlove Dumayas granted a TRO (Apr. 13, 2011) and, on May 13, 2011, issued writs of preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunctions directing PCSO to lift the suspension and to cease acts that would cancel the CJVA, subject to a bond. PCSO moved to quash; Judge Dumayas denied the motion (Sept. 4, 2013). TMA later obtained an order (Nov. 6, 2013) compelling delivery of enumerated lotto papers at contract prices; this drew a TRO from the Supreme Court (Oct. 20, 2014) enjoining implementation of the Nov. 6, 2013 order.
TMA pursued motions for execution at the trial level for deliveries it claimed to have made. Judge Elpidio Calis (Branch 133) granted a motion for execution (June 11, 2014) ordering payment of P82,354,037.32 and denying petitioner’s omnibus motion (Aug. 12, 2014). The CA (CA‑G.R. SP No. 137528) affirmed (Feb. 4, 2016). Judge Joselito Villarosa later granted summary judgment (Dec. 5, 2017) substituting a permanent injunction for the preliminary writ and, on Jan. 18, 2018, granted execution of P707,223,555.44 (writ of execution), ordering PCSO funds to be levied; a corresponding manager’s check was issued Feb. 23, 2018.
PCSO filed three petitions with the Supreme Court: G.R. No. 212143 (Petition for Review on Certiorari) assailing the CA decision in CA‑G.R. SP No. 132655 that upheld Dumayas’s May 13 and Sept. 4 orders; G.R. No. 225457 (Petition for Review on Certiorari) challenging the CA decision in CA‑G.R. SP No. 137528 that affirmed Calis’s June 11 and Aug. 12 orders; and G.R. No. 236888 (Petition for Certiorari)...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May petitioners invoke direct Supreme Court review (extraordinary direct recourse) of the RTC order (Jan. 18, 2018) in G.R. No. 236888?
- Were the RTC’s writs of preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunctions (Orders of May 13, 2011; Sept. 4, 2013; Nov. 6, 2013) lawful, or did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing them?
- Were the writs of execution and corresponding orders directing payment from PCSO funds (Orders dated June 11, 2014; Aug. 12, 2014; Jan. 18, 2018) valid and enforceable, or must they be annu...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)