Case Digest (G.R. No. L-5987)
Facts:
- The case involves the Marikina Toll Bridge, constructed under Act No. 3500.
- Narciso G. Isidro, a bus operator, filed a complaint against several government officials.
- Isidro alleged that he has been paying tolls for the use of the bridge.
- He claimed that the cost of the bridge plus 4% interest per annum had been fully recovered from the tolls collected.
- Isidro requested the court to issue a writ of preliminary injunction to stop the collection of tolls and to order the defendants to certify to the President that the cost of the bridge had been fully recovered.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The Court of First Instance did not exceed its jurisdiction or abuse its discretion in issuing t...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- More than fifteen years had elapsed since the opening of the bridge, and certification is not required for this fact.
- The Provincial Board of Rizal failed to fulfill its duty to certify to the President that the cost of the bridge had been fully recovered.
- The defendants' allegation that the money borrowed for the construction of the bridge had not been fully paid is immaterial....continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-5987)
Facts:
The case of Secretary of Public Works and Communications v. Tan involves the construction of the Marikina Toll Bridge under the provisions of Act No. 3500. The bridge was declared a toll bridge for a period not exceeding fifteen years, and tolls were collected from all traffic using the bridge. Narciso G. Isidro, a bus operator, filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, the Secretary of Finance, and the Executive Secretary, alleging that the cost of the bridge plus 4% interest per annum had been fully recovered from the tolls collected, and therefore, the collection of tolls should be discontinued. The Provincial Board of Rizal also filed a complaint in intervention, making similar allegations.
The Court of First Instance issued a writ of preliminary injunction, restraining the defendants from continuing the collection of tolls on the bridge. The defendants argued in their answer that the money borrowed for the construction of the bridge had not been fully paid. The defendants filed a petition in the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, seeking to nullify the preliminary injunction.
Issue:
The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of First Instance acted in excess of its jurisdiction or with abuse of its discretion in issu...