SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS), VLADIMIR ALARIQUE T. CABIGAO and BONIFACIO S. TUMBOKON, vs. HON. JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., in his capacity as Mayor of the City of Manila.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, upon the filing of a total bond of TWO MILLION (Php 2,000,000.00) PESOS, let a Writ of Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction be issued ordering [respondent] and the City of Manila, their officers, agents, representatives, successors, and any other persons assisting or acting in their behalf, during the pendency of the case, to REFRAIN from taking steps to enforce Ordinance No. 8027, and let a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction be issued ordering [respondent] to issue [Chevron and Shell] the necessary Business Permits to operate at the Pandacan Terminal. [16] Petron likewise filed its own petition in the RTC of Manila, Branch 42, also attacking the validity of Ordinance No. 8027 with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order (TRO). This was docketed as civil case no. 03-106379. In an order dated August 4, 2004, the RTC enjoined the parties to maintain the status quo. [17] Thereafter, in 2006, the city council of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 8119, also known as the Manila Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance of 2006. [18] This was approved by respondent on June 16, 2006. [19] Aggrieved anew, Chevron and Shell filed a complaint in the RTC of Manila, Branch 20, asking for the nullification of Ordinance No. 8119. [20] This was docketed as civil case no. 06-115334. Petron filed its own complaint on the same causes of action in the RTC of Manila, Branch 41. [21] This was docketed as civil case no. 07-116700. [22] The court issued a TRO in favor of Petron, enjoining the City of Manila and respondent from enforcing Ordinance No. 8119. [23] Meanwhile, in civil case no. 03-106379, the parties filed a joint motion to withdraw complaint and counterclaim on February 20, 2007. [24] In an order dated April 23, 2007, the joint motion was granted and all the claims and counterclaims of the parties were withdrawn. [25] Given these additional pieces of information, the following were submitted as issues for our resolution: whether movants-intervenors should be allowed to intervene in this case; [26] whether the following are impediments to the execution of our March 7, 2007 decision: (a) Ordinance No. 8119, the enactment and existence of which were not previously brought by the parties to the attention of the Court and (b) writs of preliminary prohibitory injunction and preliminary mandatory injunction and status quo order issued by the RTC of Manila, Branches 39 and 42 and whether the implementation of Ordinance No. 8027 will unduly encroach upon the DOEs powers and functions involving energy resources. During the oral arguments, the parties submitted to this Courts power to rule on the constitutionality and validity of Ordinance No. 8027 despite the pendency of consolidated cases involving this issue in the RTC. [27] The importance of settling this controversy as fully and as expeditiously as possible was emphasized, considering its impact on public interest. Thus, we will also dispos