Title
E. Razon, Inc. vs. Philippine Ports Authority
Case
G.R. No. 75197
Decision Date
Jun 22, 1987
ERI's port management contract voided due to illegal equity transfer to Romualdez, violating anti-graft laws; PPA's cancellation upheld, no due process breach.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 75197)

Factual Background

• 1966: ERI awarded a five-year arrastre contract for Piers 3 and 5 after public bidding. ERI invested heavily on government assurances of renewal without rebidding.
• 1971–1974: Upon Customs’ call for rebidding, ERI sought injunctive relief. The Supreme Court ordered rebidding; ERI prevailed and executed a five-year contract (effective January 1, 1974). ERI increased capital from ₱2 million to ₱20 million in August 1974.
• Late 1978: Enrique Razon allegedly coerced into endorsing blank certificates representing 60% of ERI’s shares to President Marcos’s brother-in-law, Alfredo “Bejo” Romualdez. ERI was renamed MPSI; Razon retained nominal presidency with limited powers.
• July 1, 1980: PPA executed an eight-year management contract with ERI/MPSI.
• February–July 1986: After the Marcos administration’s ouster, Razon reorganized MPSI’s board, restored presidential powers and corporate name, and audited operations.
• July 18–19, 1986: Following truckers’ demonstrations and alleged service complaints, PPA demanded an explanation by 9 AM July 19. ERI/MPSI’s response was delayed and reportedly undelivered. PPA cancelled the contract effective immediately and took over operations.
• July 21, 1986: Marina appointed interim operator. ERI/MPSI filed a certiorari petition and sought injunctive relief in both the Supreme Court and the Regional Trial Court (RTC), resulting in motions to withdraw, charges of forum-shopping, and disciplinary proceedings against counsel.

Petitioners’ Allegations

• The contract, characterized as a franchise or vested property right due to its long enjoyment, could not be cancelled without prior hearing and investigation.
• PPA’s cancellation was an exercise of regulatory adjudication rather than a simple proprietary rescission, thus triggering due-process safeguards.

Respondents’ Defenses

  1. The operative contract was controlled by Romualdez via Metro Port Services, Inc., rendering it tainted by corruption.
  2. Under R.A. No. 3019, Sec. 5, Romualdez was barred from any government transaction; the contract was therefore void ab initio.
  3. ERI/MPSI admitted grounds for cancellation; no hearing was required for proprietary contract termination.
  4. Marina’s interim designation was within PPA’s prerogative and Marina was qualified for the task.

Illegality of Contract and Resulting Nullity

• Under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019, Sec. 5) and Civil Code Arts. 1409, 1422, a contract entered into with an unlawful cause or by one barred from contracting with government is void and automatically avoided.
• Enrique Razon’s transfer of 60% equity to Romualdez, motivated by illegal renewal assurances, constituted an illicit causa and facilitated Romualdez’s prohibited participation.
• The 1980 management contract, derived directly from that illegal transfer, was itself void without need for judicial annulment.

Due Process and


...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.