Title
Supreme Court
Philippine Ports Authority vs. Nasipit Integrated Arrastre and Stevedoring Services, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 174136
Decision Date
Dec 23, 2008
PPA revoked NIASSI's hold-over authority after failed contract execution; CA upheld NIASSI's certiorari petition, citing procedural lapses and public interest, reinstating the injunction.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 174136)

Applicable Law

The relevant legal framework includes the provisions governing injunctive relief as stipulated under the Rules of Court, specifically Rule 58, and the constitutional mandates established under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, considering that the decision date is December 23, 2008.

Factual Background

NIASSI, a domestic corporation engaged in the stevedoring business for over 15 years, was awarded a ten-year cargo handling contract after winning a bidding process conducted by PPA in November 2000. Although a Notice of Award was sent to NIASSI, the formal contract was never executed. Subsequently, PPA issued several temporary hold-over permits allowing NIASSI to operate until these were revoked in December 2006, when PPA announced its intention to take over the operations at the port.

Initial Judicial Actions

Following PPA's takeover, NIASSI sought judicial relief by filing a petition for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to compel PPA to honor the contract and return control of the stevedoring operations. On March 18, 2005, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted NIASSI's request, issuing a preliminary injunction to restore its operations at the port, emphasizing the potential damages NIASSI would incur if PPA continued its actions.

RTC's Initial Rationale

The RTC found that NIASSI had substantial investments in the port operations, and it reasoned that PPA's actions would result in irreparable harm to NIASSI. The court's order required NIASSI to post a bond of One Million Pesos, which NIASSI complied with, thus allowing the injunction to take effect.

Subsequent Developments

PPA contested the RTC's decision, claiming that the bond requirement was improperly executed. In response, the court scheduled multiple hearings but subsequently issued a resolution on April 11, 2005, dissolving the preliminary injunction, asserting the state's need to revoke permits to serve public interest. This dissolution was done without conducting a hearing to allow NIASSI to present its case.

Court of Appeals' Review

NIASSI appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the RTC had acted with grave abuse of discretion in dissolving the writ without a proper hearing. The appellate court found merit in NIASSI's arguments, stating that PPA's motion for reconsideration was merely a reiteration of previous arguments and did not warrant further relief. The CA reinstated the original injunction, citing the lack of due process afforded to NIASSI during the dissolution proceedings.

PPA's Appeal

Following the CA's decision, PPA sought redress from the Supreme Court, alleging that the appellate court erred in interfering with the RTC's judgment and that NIASSI did not follow the necessary procedural steps by failing to file a motion for reconsideration before seeking certiorari.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the CA's decision, declaring that the RTC's

...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.