Case Summary (G.R. No. 253342)
Charter Powers Authorize Stevedoring Services
Under Section 3(1) of RA 6395, NPC may exercise “such powers and do such things as may be reasonably necessary…incidental or auxiliary” to its corporate purposes of constructing, operating, and maintaining power plants. Jurisprudence (Montelibano v. Bacolod-Murcia Milling; Republic v. Acoje; Teresa Electric) affirms that a corporation may perform acts not expressly listed in its charter so long as they are necessary to promote its corporate ends. Unloading coal onto NPC’s pier is indispensable to fueling its thermal power plant and therefore falls within its charter powers.
Absence of Right to Preliminary Injunction
A writ of preliminary injunction requires a clear right needing protection and wrongful acts violating that right. Sea Lion’s contract with NPC had expired before litigation commenced, and its PPA permit had likewise lapsed. There was no existing contractual or legal right that warranted preservation by injunction. Moreover, NPC held PPA authority to handle cargo at its own pier.
Prohibition Against Compulsory Contracting via Mandamus
The trial court’s directive that NPC either contract with Sea Lion or hold public bidding amounted to a writ of mandamus. Mandamus only compels performance of a ministerial duty clearly enjoined by law; it cannot control discretionary corporate decisions or en
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 253342)
Facts
- The National Power Corporation (NPC) operates a pier at the Batangas Coal-Fired Thermal Power Plant in Calaca, Batangas, for the receipt of coal shipments to fuel its power-generating facilities.
- Sea Lion International Port, Terminal Services, Inc. (private respondent) held a now-expired contract with NPC for stevedoring and arrastre services at that pier.
- Upon expiration of the contract, NPC assumed responsibility for stevedoring and arrastre services without renewing the private respondent’s agreement.
- Private respondent filed a complaint for prohibition and mandamus with damages against NPC and the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA), alleging bad faith and grave abuse of discretion in NPC’s refusal to renew the contract and its unilateral takeover of the services.
- The Regional Trial Court, Branch 90, Quezon City (respondent judge) initially issued a restraining order forbidding NPC from undertaking stevedoring services.
- On June 8, 1988, the respondent judge denied NPC’s “Urgent Motion” to dissolve the restraining order and instead issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining NPC from further stevedoring and arrastre operations at its Batangas pier and directing NPC either to contract with private respondent or conduct a public bidding.
- NPC filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which on June 15, 1988 issued a temporary restraining order keeping the status quo.
Procedural History
- NPC’s Urgent Motion to dissolve the restraining order argued:
• Respondent judge lacked jurisdiction under Presidential Decree No. 1818 to issue any injunction affecting public-utility activities.
• Private respondent failed to establish any cause of action for preliminary injunction, as its contractual relationship and PPA permit had both expired. - The Regional Trial Court denied the motion and granted the writ of preliminary injunction.
- NPC elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
- Parties filed their respective pleadings (petition, comment, reply), the issues were joined, and the Supreme Court took the case up for decisio