Case Summary (G.R. No. 201284)
Relevant Background Facts
On October 28, 1997, the CPA issued a Certificate of Registration and Permit to Operate, granting the petitioners the right to operate a private port facility until December 31, 2022. However, on March 1, 2006, the CPA rescinded this permit, citing the lack of a necessary Foreshore Lease Agreement (FLA) and asserting that the petitioners' application for a land use permit was still pending after being denied previously. Following the revocation, the CPA took possession of the port and began construction on the premises, prompting the petitioners to file a complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
Legal Claims by Petitioners
The petitioners contended that the unilateral cancellation of their permit constituted a violation of their right to due process. They asserted their right to operate the Talo-ot Port, highlighting favorable endorsements from local government officials and an Environmental Compliance Certificate from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). They argued that the CPA's actions significantly infringed on their operational rights, warranting injunctive relief to prevent serious damage.
RTC Proceedings and Initial Orders
On August 31, 2007, the RTC issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing the CPA from prohibiting the petitioners from entering the facilities, while allowing the CPA to maintain possession of the structures they had constructed. Subsequently, the RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners, emphasizing the lack of due process and the premature nature of the CPA's actions.
CA Ruling and Appeal Process
The CPA sought relief from the Court of Appeals (CA), which issued a decision nullifying the RTC’s orders. The CA concluded that the RTC had abused its discretion by granting a writ of preliminary injunction. The appellate court determined that the projects being undertaken by the CPA at the port were national infrastructure projects under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8975, which prohibits lower courts from issuing restraining orders against such national projects.
Supreme Court's Deliberation and Conclusion
In its deliberation, the Supreme Court upheld the CA's ruling, affirming that the RTC's issuance of a temporary injunctive writ was void under R.A. No. 8975. The Court clarified that the port facility represented a national government project and that no constitutional right had been violated upon the revocation of the petitioners' permit. The petitioners' Certificate of Registration was
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 201284)
Case Citation
- 747 Phil. 528
- G.R. No. 201284
- Date of Decision: November 19, 2014
- Division: Third Division
Parties Involved
- Petitioners: Luvimin Cebu Mining Corp. and Luvimin Port Services Company, Inc.
- Respondents: Cebu Port Authority (CPA) and Port Manager Angelo C. Verdan
Procedural History
- The petitioners appeal from the Decision dated October 19, 2011, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 03790.
- The CA nullified the Orders dated February 19, 2008, and August 27, 2008, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 10, which had ordered the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against the CPA.
Factual Background
- On October 28, 1997, CPA issued a Certificate of Registration and Permit to Operate to the petitioners for a private port facility in Barangay Talo-ot, Argao, Cebu, valid until December 31, 2022.
- On March 1, 2006, the CPA rescinded the registration/permit citing:
- The absence of a required Foreshore Lease Agreement (FLA) pending with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
- A prior denial of the FLA application by DENR due to classification issues.
- The petitioners' application for Other Lawful Purposes (OLP) remained ungranted.
- Following the rescission, CPA took possession of the port facility and began fencing the premises, prompting the petitioners to file for Injunction and Damages.
Claims of the Petitioners
- The petitioners alleged that the unilateral cancellation of their permit denied them due process.
- They reclaimed the land and built a roll-on-roll-off (RORO) facility at their own expense, providing low-cost transport and cargo handling services.
- They claimed favorable endorsements from local government officials and had obtained an Environmental Compliance Certificate fr