G.R. No. 160025 - Sangguniang Panglungsod ng Baguio City vs. Jadewell Parking Systems Corp.

The City Government of Baguio and Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation (Jadewell) entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) dated 26 June 2000, authorizing Jadewell to regulate, collect parking fees, and install modern parking meters for on-street parking in Baguio City.
A supplemental MOA was executed on 31 August 2000 to include the Ganza/Burnham parking space under the project, which was not ratified by the Sangguniang Panlungsod (Sanggunian).
Several petitions and cases arose between Jadewell and city officials, including Mayor Bernardo M. Vergara, Mayor Braulio D. Yaranon, members of the Sanggunian, and Judge Fernando Vil Pamintuan.

Prior to the MOA, Jadewell proposed the privatization of the administration of on-street parking using Schlumberger’s DG4S Pay and Display Parking Meters.
Ordinance No. 003, Series of 2000 was passed regulating the privatization of on-street parking.
Jadewell commenced operations, installing only 14 parking meters out of 100 designated parking spaces. Parking attendants collected fees manually and were not deputized by the Land Transportation Office (LTO).
Alleged breaches by Jadewell included failure to install required meters, failure to remit city’s share, and failure to update the required performance bond.
The Sanggunian passed Resolution No. 037, Series of 2002 ("Resolution 37") to rescind the MOA alleging substantial breach by Jadewell. The then-Mayor Vergara vetoed the resolution, but the Sanggunian overrode the veto.
Jadewell challenged the rescission, leading to litigation before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and subsequently the Court of Appeals (CA).
The Court of Audit – Cordillera Autonomous Region (COA-CAR) conducted an audit, reporting multiple deficiencies by Jadewell and incongruities in financial reporting and contract implementation.

While litigation was ongoing, multiple petitions for contempt were filed by Jadewell against city officials for actions opposing Jadewell’s authority under the MOA, including resolutions and executive orders prohibiting Jadewell from collecting fees or operating.
Mayor Yaranon issued several executive orders and memoranda directing city police to prevent Jadewell from clamping, towing, or impounding vehicles.
Jadewell’s petitioned for contempt and disbarment against Mayor Yaranon and other officials, asserting they acted in defiance of pending litigations and court orders.
Existing cases were consolidated before the Supreme Court for resolution.
The RTC Branch 3, presided by Judge Pamintuan, issued an injunction against Jadewell, suspending the MOA’s enforcement in Civil Case No. 6089-R.

In 2006, the Sanggunian enacted Resolution No. 204, Series of 2006, formally notifying Jadewell of its intention to rescind the MOA with a 60-day notice, constituting the second act of rescission.
This second rescission was implemented despite pending judicial cases before the Supreme Court.

Whether the first act of rescission of the MOA by the Sanggunian in 2002 was valid.
Whether the second act of rescission in 2006 was valid and its legal effects.
Whether the Sanggunian had authority to rescind the MOA without observing procedural due process and the conditions stipulated in the MOA.

Whether Jadewell's petition for certiorari before the RTC was properly treated as an action for injunction.

Whether the city officials and Judge Pamintuan are liable for indirect or direct contempt for their actions opposing Jadewell's asserted rights under the MOA while litigation was pending.
Whether certain officials and lawyers should be disbarred for acts in relation to the controversy.
Whether a trial judge is duty-bound to dismiss cases allegedly in defiance of the Supreme Court's authority on the same matter.

Validity of the administrative suspension imposed on Mayor Yaranon by the Office of the President (OP).
Whether the appeal questioning the validity of his suspension was mooted by his failure to be re-elected.