Case Digest (G.R. No. 166429)
Facts:
In the consolidated petition Republic of the Philippines et al. vs. Hon. Henrick F. Gingoyon and PIATCO, decided by the Supreme Court En Banc on December 19, 2005 under G.R. No. 166429, the Republic of the Philippines (represented by Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita), the Department of Transportation and Communications, and the Manila International Airport Authority (collectively, the Government) sought to expropriate the nearly completed Ninoy Aquino International Airport Passenger Terminal III (NAIA 3) from Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. (PIATCO). PIATCO had constructed the terminal under a Build-Operate-Transfer concession later voided by this Court in Agan v. PIATCO (2003 decision + 2004 resolution), which nonetheless directed that PIATCO receive just compensation before any government takeover. After negotiations and arbitration attempts stalled, the Government filed an expropriation complaint on December 21, 2004 in RTC Pasay City, Branch 117, deposiCase Digest (G.R. No. 166429)
Facts:
- NAIA Terminal 3 Development
- The Government contracted PIATCO under a Build-Operate-Transfer scheme (RA 6957, as amended) to design, build and operate Ninoy Aquino International Airport Passenger Terminal 3 (NAIA 3) for 25 years.
- In Agan v. PIATCO (2003), this Court voided the concession agreements for lack of requisite financial capacity and contrary to public policy, but ruled that PIATCO must receive just compensation before any Government takeover of the completed facilities.
- Expropriation Proceedings before the RTC
- On December 21, 2004, the Government filed a complaint for expropriation, deposited ₱3,002,125,000 (assessed value) with Land Bank (to secure a writ of possession) and obtained the writ the same day.
- PIATCO and intervenors challenged service of summons and compensation issues but the RTC initially granted immediate possession to the Government.
- RTC’s Subsequent Orders (January 2005)
- January 4: Ordered Land Bank to release US$62,343,175.77 to PIATCO (to be deducted from eventual just compensation); prohibited Government from leasing or awarding new concessions over NAIA 3 pending full compensation.
- January 7: Appointed three commissioners to ascertain just compensation.
- January 10: Denied reconsideration and motion to inhibit the presiding judge; struck down only the leasing prohibition as superfluous.
Issues:
- Which regime governs the expropriation proceedings for NAIA 3: Rule 67 of the Rules of Court or RA 8974?
- Did the RTC gravely abuse its discretion by ordering immediate release of US$62.3 million when only ₱3 billion had been deposited?
- Was it proper to prohibit the Government from performing acts of ownership (leasing/concessions) over NAIA 3 pending full payment?
- Did the RTC err in motu proprio appointing commissioners without prior consultation or giving parties notice?
- Should the presiding judge have inhibited himself for alleged bias in issuing the January 4 and January 10 orders?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)