The Supreme Court (SC) has junked the appeal of the private operators of Metro Rail Transit 3 system for the issuance of an injunction to enjoin the Department of Transportation (DOTr) from procuring 48 new light-rail vehicles (LRVs) for the Metro Rail Transit (MRT) 3 from another supplier amounting to P3.76 billion.
In an 11-page resolution made public last October 14, the SC’s Third Division upheld the rulings issued by the Court of Appeals on July 19, 2016 which sustained the February 20, 2014 order by the Regional Trial Court of Makati City denying the prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction filed by the Metro Rail Transit Corporation and Metro Rail Transit Holdings II, Inc. against the DOTr.
The SC described as “specious” the assertion of the petitioners that they are entitled to the issuance of the injunction because the matter is of extreme urgency and involves a constitutional issue.
The petitioners also argued that the non-issuance of the injunction will cause MRTC, MRTH II, and the riding public grave and irreparable injury and that DOTr’s actions are tantamount to a deprivation of property without due process of law.
Besides, the petitioners insisted that it had not waived its right of first refusal under the 1997 Build-Lease-Transfer (BLT) Agreement with the DOTr when it failed to reply to the latter’s letter dated December 19, 2007 informing them of its intention to procure refurbished LRVs and inquiring as to whether they would be exercising their right of first refusal to supply LRVs.
But the SC sided with the CA and the trial court’s decisions that the latter is prohibited from issuing an injunction as the relief being sought by the petitioners “falls within the proscription mandated by Republic Act No. 8975.”
The said law enjoins all courts, except the SC, from issuing any temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or preliminary mandatory injunction against the government, or any of its agencies and officials to restrain or compel the bidding or awarding of a contract or project of the national government to avoid unnecessary increase in construction costs and to allow the public to enjoy soonest the benefits of national government projects.
“Here petitioners have failed to substantiate their bare allegations that they have suffered grave injustice or irreparable injury involving their constitutional rights,” the SC ruled.
The tribunal stressed that the case does not raise any constitutional issue since the relationship between the DOTr and the petitioners are merely contractual and their dispute entails “adjudication of contractual rights.”
“Neither have petitioners proved that MRTC stands to suffer some grave and irreparable injury. While the Court understands petitioners’ concerns, there is still no basis for the issuance of a WPI because, as explained by the CA, it can be compensable through the award of damages. As the damages alleged by them can be quantified, it cannot be considered as ‘grave and irreparable injury’ as understood in law,” the SC said.
“All told, the CA correctly affirmed the RTC’s denial of petitioners’ petition. We deem it best to refrain from ruling on the contractual dispute concerning petitioners and the DOTr since the same should be threshed out and litigated in the appropriate proceedings between them,” it added.
The petitioners sought for an injunction as an interim measure to protect their interests while an arbitration is ongoing between them and the DOTr for allegedly violating the 1997 BLT agreement.
The arbitration is set to thresh out the conflict on whether MRT’s private owners can still invoke their right of first refusal to prevent the government from entering into a third-party supply contract with Dalian.
The DOTr’s procurement of LRVs from Chinese firm CNR Dalian Locomotive and Rolling Stock, Ltd. (Dalian), according to the petitioners, is in contrast to the principle of having a single point of responsibility, which covers the construction, operation and maintenance of MRT.
The petitioners also warned that if the new LRVs are allowed to run without the necessary adjustment and upgrade to the system, the riding public would be exposed to high risks of train collisions and loss of lives.
However, the CA held that petitioners’ arguments were merely “self-serving and uncorroborated” by independent witnesses.
