Title
Malayan Integrated Industries, Corp. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 101469
Decision Date
Sep 4, 1992
Dispute over Mandaue reclamation project: MALAYAN contested new contract with F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc. after prior agreement lapsed. Court upheld injunction favoring F.F. Cruz, citing P.D. No. 1818 and executive discretion.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 101469)

Factual Background

On December 12, 1977, the City of Mandaue and MALAYAN entered into a reclamation contract for approximately 180 hectares (later increased to 360 hectares) of offshore and foreshore lands and their development into an industrial and trading center with modern harbor and port facilities for domestic and international commerce. The project was designed to connect Cebu City harbor with Mandaue from Cabahug coastway to the Cebu City–Mandaue boundary. Completion was contemplated within four (4) years after presidential approval.

The reclamation arrangement later came under legal scrutiny because P.D. No. 3-A mandated that reclamation of areas under water, whether foreshore or inland, must be undertaken only by the national government or persons authorized by it through a proper contract. Executive Order No. 525 further designated the Public Estates Authority (PEA) as the central authority for integrating, directing, and coordinating reclamation projects for and in behalf of the national government. The Minister of Justice, acting through Opinion No. 70 (Series of 1979) dated July 16, 1979, interpreted P.D. No. 3-A as implying a withdrawal or repeal of the City’s charter-based right to reclaim submerged or foreshore lands, while recognizing that if PEA authorized the City to reclaim its own foreshore, the former could execute a contract with the latter under P.D. No. 3-A and related provisions.

In response, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Mandaue in October 1979 adopted Resolution No. 116, authorizing the City Mayor to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with PEA, and Resolution No. 117, authorizing the City Mayor to enter into a contract with PEA for reclamation of 360 hectares or more of foreshore and submerged lands. On November 26, 1979, the City and MALAYAN executed a Confirmatory Agreement, under which MALAYAN undertook, at its own expense, to prepare the detailed and integrated development plan on land use, including technical, economic, marketing, and financial feasibility studies required by the Office of the President, with submission contemplated “not later than July 31, 1980.”

MALAYAN submitted documents to PEA on August 13, 1980 and then submitted additional strategies on August 15, 1980. On September 29, 1980, PEA Chairman Ruben Ancheta recommended approval. Although President Marcos approved the project “in principle,” the reclamation contract between the City and MALAYAN reportedly remained unresolved or “hanging in the air.” After the 1986 “People Power” Revolution, the project was resubmitted to President Corazon C. Aquino. The City reiterated its request for approval and permission to commence reclamation on June 13, 1988, and the matter was referred to PEA. As of May 24, 1989, the feasibility and integrated plan submissions were stated to remain pending approval by the Office of the President.

On February 13, 1989, PEA informed MALAYAN that its feasibility study should be updated. Owing to reservations about the City–MALAYAN arrangement and the City’s desire to proceed without further delay, Mayor Ouano notified PEA on April 15, 1989 that the City was negotiating with F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc., in consortium with the Cebu Contractors Association, to undertake the detailed feasibility and development plan. The City emphasized that F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc. had international reputation, reclamation capability, dredging equipment, and financial capacity.

The Sangguniang Panlungsod passed Resolution No. 134/89 on April 19, 1989, authorizing the Mayor to enter a reclamation contract with F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc., conditioned on presidential approval. The contract with F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc. was executed on April 26, 1989. When MALAYAN inquired from the Office of the President whether Section 7 of R.A. 5519 (Mandaue City Charter), which granted the City authority to reclaim offshore land, had been repealed or superseded by Section 1 of P.D. No. 3-A and Section 1 of E.O. No. 525, the inquiry was answered affirmatively on August 31, 1989 by Chief State Counsel Elmer T. Bautista, citing the earlier Opinion No. 70, Series of 1979 of the Secretary of Justice as still controlling.

On May 6, 1989, PEA recommended approval in principle subject to conditions. Among those conditions were submission of a master development plan within six months, undertaking detailed engineering studies, PEA supervision and related cost-bearing, delegation to the City to negotiate with a reputable contractor for physical reclamation under a proper contract subject to PEA review and approval, and a declaration that a prior approval in principle involving MALAYAN jointly with other local entities be deemed abandoned due to failure to execute or implement within a long period from 1979 to the present.

After MALAYAN protested the City’s reclamation contract with F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc., the Office of the President, through Executive Secretary Catalino Macaraig, Jr., acting by authority of the President, approved on June 27, 1989 the proposed Mandaue reclamation project for approximately 180 hectares of foreshore and submerged lands, with specific conditions. Critically, the approval declared that the reclamation and development contract entered by and between the City and MALAYAN on December 12, 1977 was “DISAPPROVED” and/or “declared as without force and effect” because it appeared to have been entered in violation of Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 3-A and/or because MALAYAN failed to implement the project within a reasonable period.

Proceedings Before the Trial Court and the Injunction Orders

On November 26, 1990, MALAYAN filed before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 10, Cebu City—after an earlier filing in Manila that the case withdrew—a petition for prohibitory and mandatory preliminary injunction against the City of Mandaue, F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc., the Cebu Contractors Association, Mandaue Realty Resources Corporation, and Philippine Orion Properties, Inc. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-9658. MALAYAN prayed for restraint against the implementation of the reclamation contract between the City and F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc., alleging injustice to it and violation of MALAYAN’s previously perfected contract, as well as emphasizing that it had already incurred expenses and invested substantial sums in the Mandaue Reclamation Project. It also sought a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction allowing MALAYAN to undertake actual reclamation works immediately.

On November 29, 1990, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order stopping the respondents from continuing implementation of the questioned contract pending further orders. The respondents’ motion to quash the restraining order and motion to dismiss failed. After a hearing, Judge Leonardo B. Canares issued on December 18, 1990 a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction upon posting of an injunction bond of P5,000,000. The order enjoined the respondents and those acting for them from implementing the reclamation contract executed on April 26, 1989 by the City and F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc., from implementing all other reclamation contracts executed in favor of those respondents or their assigns by the City and/or PEA, and from conducting any kind of works within the area covered by the Mandaue Reclamation Project.

The respondents’ motions for reconsideration were denied. They then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals’ Action in CA-G.R. SP No. 25621

On August 9, 1991, the respondents filed in the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari with prohibitory and mandatory preliminary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction under CA-G.R. SP No. 25621, challenging Judge Canares’ preliminary injunction. They sought annulment of the writ, restraint against MALAYAN from interfering with reclamation works, restraint against enforcing later orders of Judge Canares, dismissal of MALAYAN’s petition in Civil Case No. CEB-9658, and an injunction against MALAYAN’s interference with the City–F.F. Cruz contract and the related Memorandum of Agreement involving PEA and the other corporate participants.

The Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order on August 9, 1991 to preserve the status quo and enjoined the parties from enforcing Judge Canares’ orders pending further orders. On August 28, 1991, it issued a writ of preliminary injunction upon a P10,000,000 bond posted by F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc. After the Court of Appeals denied MALAYAN’s motion for reconsideration, MALAYAN brought the controversy to the Supreme Court.

The Parties’ Contentions and the Sole Issue on Review

In the Supreme Court, MALAYAN asked for a restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction to stop respondents from further proceeding in the Court of Appeals action, and it sought annulment of the Court of Appeals’ resolutions dated August 9, 1991 and August 28, 1991, as well as annulment of the writ of preliminary injunction issued on August 29, 1991. The Supreme Court framed the only issue as whether the Court of Appeals had exceeded its jurisdiction or acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction in CA-G.R. SP No. 25621.

Legal Basis and Reasoning of the Supreme Court

The Court held that the Court of Appeals had not abused its discretion in stopping Judge Canares and MALAYAN from interfering with the prosecution of the Mandaue reclamation project of F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc. and its associates. First, the Court of Appeals had properly considered that the reclamation contract with F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc. had been approved by the Office of the President, while the reclamation contract with MALAYAN had been disapproved. The official document referenced in the appellate resolutions showed that the Office of the President approved the reclamation project pursued through the City and private petitioners, while disapproving the City–MALAYAN contract of December 12, 1977. The appellate resolution f

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.