PHILIPPINE SUPREME
COURT
DECISIONS
EN BANC
G.R.
No.
155001
May 5, 2003
DEMOSTHENES P. AGAN,
JR., JOSEPH B. CATAHAN, JOSE MARI B. REUNILLA, MANUEL ANTONIO B.
BOÑE,
MAMERTO S. CLARA, REUEL E. DIMALANTA, MORY V. DOMALAON, CONRADO G.
DIMAANO,
LOLITA R. HIZON, REMEDIOS P. ADOLFO, BIENVENIDO C. HILARIO, MIASCOR
WORKERS
UNION - NATIONAL LABOR UNION (MWU-NLU), AND PHILIPPINE AIRLINES
EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION (PALEA),
Petitioners,
-versus-
PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL
AIR TERMINALS CO., INC., MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY,
DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS and SECRETARY LEANDRO M. MENDOZA,
IN HIS CAPACITY AS HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
COMMUNICATIONS,
Respondents,
MIASCOR GROUNDHANDLING
CORPORATION, DNATA-WINGS AVIATION SYSTEMS CORPORATION, MACROASIA-EUREST
SERVICES, INC., MACROASIA-MENZIES AIRPORT SERVICES CORPORATION, MIASCOR
CATERING SERVICES CORPORATION, MIASCOR AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE
CORPORATION,
AND MIASCOR LOGISTICS CORPORATION,
Petitioners-in-Intervention,
|
|
G.R.
No.
155547
May 5, 2003
SALACNIB F. BATERINA,
CLAVEL A. MARTINEZ AND CONSTANTINO G. JARAULA,
Petitioners,
-versus
PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL
AIR TERMINALS CO., INC., MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY,
DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND
HIGHWAYS,
SECRETARY LEANDRO M. MENDOZA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, AND SECRETARY SIMEON A.
DATUMANONG,
IN HIS CAPACITY AS HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND
HIGHWAYS,
Respondents,
JACINTO V. PARAS,
RAFAEL P. NANTES, EDUARDO C. ZIALCITA, WILLY BUYSON VILLARAMA, PROSPERO
C. NOGRALES, PROSPERO A. PICHAY, JR., HARLIN CAST ABAYON, and BENASING
O. MACARANBON,
Respondents-Intervenors,
|
G.R.
No.
155661
May 5, 2003
CEFERINO C. LOPEZ,
RAMON M. SALES, ALFREDO B. VALENCIA, MA. TERESA V. GAERLAN, LEONARDO DE
LA ROSA, DINA C. DE LEON, VIRGIE CATAMIN RONALD SCHLOBOM, ANGELITO
SANTOS,
MA. LUISA M. PALCON AND SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA PALIPARAN NG PILIPINAS
(SMPP),
Petitioners,
-versus-
PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL
AIR TERMINALS CO., INC., MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY,
DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, SECRETARY LEANDRO M. MENDOZA, IN
HIS CAPACITY AS HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
COMMUNICATIONS,
Respondents. |
SEPARATE OPINION
VITUG,
J.:
This court is bereft of
jurisdiction to hear the petitions at bar. The Constitution
provides
that the Supreme Court shall exercise original jurisdiction over, among
other actual controversies, petitions for certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus,
quo warranto, and habeas corpus.[1]
The cases in question, although denominated to be petitions for
prohibition,
actually pray for the nullification of the PIATCO contracts and to
restrain
respondents from implementing said agreements for being illegal and
unconstitutional.
Section 2, Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court states:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
"When the proceedings
of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether
exercising
judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are without or in
excess
of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a
person
aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court,
alleging
the facts with certainty and praying that the judgment be rendered
commanding
the respondent to desist from further proceedings in the action or
matter
specified therein, or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law
and justice may require."
chan
robles virtual law library
The Rule is
explicit.
A petition for prohibition may be filed against a tribunal,
corporation,
board, officer or person, exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or
ministerial
functions. What the petitions seek from respondents do not
involve
judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions. In
prohibition,
only legal issues affecting the jurisdiction of the tribunal, board or
officer involved may be resolved on the basis of undisputed facts.[2]
The parties allege, respectively, contentious evidentiary facts.
It would be difficult, if not anomalous, to decide the jurisdictional
issue
on the basis of the contradictory factual submissions made by the
parties.[3]
As the Court has so often exhorted, it is not a trier of facts.chanrobles virtual law library
The petitions, in effect,
are in the nature of actions for declaratory relief under Rule 63 of
the
Rules of Court. The Rules provide that any person interested
under
a contract may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action in
the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of
construction
or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties
thereunder.[4]
The Supreme Court assumes no jurisdiction over petitions for
declaratory
relief which are cognizable by regional trial courts.[5]
As I have so expressed
in Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance,[6]
reiterated in Santiago vs. Guingona, Jr.,[7]
the Supreme Court should not be thought of as having been tasked with
the
awesome responsibility of overseeing the entire bureaucracy.
Pervasive
and limitless, such as it may seem to be under the 1987 Constitution,
judicial
power still succumbs to the paramount doctrine of separation of
powers.
The Court may not at good liberty intrude, inn the guise of sovereign
imprimatur,
into every affair of government. What significance can still then
remain of the time-honored and widely acclaimed principle of separation
of powers if, at every turn, the Court allows itself to pass upon at
will
the disposition of a co-equal, independent and coordinate branch in our
system of government. I dread to think of the so varied
uncertainties
that such an undue interference can lead to.cralaw:red
Accordingly, I vote
for the dismissal of the petition.
____________________________
Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[1]
Article VIII, Section 5(1), 1987 Constitution.chanrobles virtual law library
[2]
Matuguina Integrated Products, Inc. vs. CA, 263 SCRA 490; Mafinco
Trading
Corporation vs. Ople, 70 SCRA 139.
[3]
Mafinco Trading Corporation vs. Ople, supra.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
Section 1, Rule 63, Rules of Court.chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
In re: Bermudez, 145 SCRA 160.chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
235 SCRA 630, 720.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
298 SCRA 795.
chan
robles virtual law library
Back
to Top - Back
to Main Index - Back
to Table of Contents -2003 SC Decisions
- Back
to Home
|