G.R. No. 147465 - METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VS. JANCOM ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION AND JANCOM INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS PTY. LIMITED OF AUSTRALIA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders judgment in favor of petitioners JANCOM ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION, and JANCOM INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS PTY., LIMITED OF AUSTRALIA, and against respondent GREATER METROPOLITAN MANILA SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COMM., and HON. ROBERTO N. AVENTAJADO, in his Capacity as Chairman of the said Committee, METRO MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and HON. JEJOMAR C. BINAY, in his capacity as Chairman of said Authority, declaring the Resolution of respondent Greater Metropolitan Manila Solid Waste Management Committee disregarding petitioners BOT Award Contract and calling for bids for and authorizing a new contract for the Metro Manila waste management ILLEGAL and VOID. Moreover, respondents and their agents are hereby PROHIBITED and ENJOINED from implementing the aforesaid Resolution and disregarding petitioners BOT Award Contract and from making another award in its place. Let it be emphasized that this Court is not preventing or stopping the government from implementing infrastructure projects as it is aware of the proscription under PD 1818. On the contrary, the Court is paving the way for the necessary and modern solution to the perennial garbage problem that has been the major headache of the government and in the process would serve to attract more investors in the country. (Rollo,p. 159.) Instead of appealing the decision, MMDA filed a special civil action for certiorari with prayer for a temporary restraining order with the Court of Appeals which was later docketed therein as CA-G.R. SP No. 59021. The appellate court not only required JANCOM to comment on the petition, it also granted MMDAs prayer for a temporary restraining order. During the pendency of the petition for certiorari , JANCOM moved for the execution of the RTC decision, which was opposed by MMDA. However, the RTC granted the motion for execution on the ground that its decision had become final since MMDA had not appealed the same to the Court of Appeals. MMDA moved to declare respondents and the RTC judge in contempt of court, alleging that the RTCs grant of execution was abuse of and interference with judicial rules and processes. On November 13, 2001, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 59021 and a companion case, CA-G.R. SP No. 60303. MMDAs motion for reconsideration of said decision having been denied, MMDA filed the instant petition, alleging that the Court of Appeals gravely erred in finding that: 1) There is a valid and binding contract between the Republic of the Philippines and JANCOM given that: a) the contract does not bear the signature of the President of the Philippines; b) the conditions precedent specified in the contract were not complied with; and c) there was no valid notice of award. 2) The MMDA had not seasonably appealed the Decision of the lower court via a petition for certiorari. Before taking up the substantive issue in question, we shall first dispose of the quest