G.R. No. 145742 - THE PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER JUAN O. PENA, VS. CIPRES STEVEDORING & ARRASTRE, INC..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, and considering the urgent nature of the plaintiff's complaint, that serious and irreparable damage or injury would be suffered by the plaintiff unless said acts of the defendants complained of, is restrained; said defendants Philippine Ports Authority, Manila, Juan O. Peña, Benjamin Cecilio, their agents, representatives or persons acting in their behalves, are hereby ordered to cease and desist from further conducting the scheduled public bidding and awards on April 7, 2000, and April 10, 2000, respectively within twenty (20) days from receipt hereof... [24] Petitioner thereafter filed a manifestation with urgent motion for reconsideration [25] to the aforesaid order of the trial court. Petitioner argued that the court a quo did not have the requisite jurisdiction to issue the assailed temporary restraining order; that respondent was estopped from seeking refuge from the court as it had already expressed its intention to join the bidding process involving the operation of the cargo handling operations in the port of Dumaguete City; that respondent failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not seeking relief from petitioner prior to initiating this action before the court; and that it was in the best interest of the public if the bidding process proceeds as scheduled because of the "internal squabbling" taking place within respondent corporation which could affect the quality of its service. This motion was denied in the order of the court a quo dated 24 April 2000. [26] Petitioner seasonably sought the reconsideration [27] of the trial court's order of 24 April 2000 this time arguing that: PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1818 PROHIBITS COURTS FROM ISSUING THE INJUNCTIVE WRIT IN ANY CASE, DISPUTE OR CONTROVERSY INVOLVING STEVEDORING AND ARRASTRE CONTRACTS. THE ORDER DATED APRIL 24, 2000 ADJUDICATES THE MERITS OF THE COMPLAINT EVEN BEFORE THE PARTIES ARE HEARD. THE ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER DATED APRIL 24, 2000 VIOLATES THE LAW IN CONTRACT MAKING. THE ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER DATED APRIL 24, 2000 IS BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF THE HONORABLE COURT. THE ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER DATED APRIL 24, 2000 IS AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST. THE ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER DATED APRIL 24, 2000 IS VIOLATION OF THE 1997 RULES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE. THE ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER DATED APRIL 24, 2000 IS VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS. THE ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER DATED APRIL 24, 2000 IS UNSUPPORTED BY THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. [28] In its 31 May 2000 Order, the trial court set aside the injunctive writ it previously issued "to give way to the pronouncements of P.D. No. 1818" as the "function of the PPA is vested with public interest." [29] It was thereafter the turn of respondent to file its motion for reconsideration [30] of the Order of the trial court but the court a quo stood firm on its Order setting aside the injunctive writ it issued. [31] From this adverse ruling, respondent filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals. In said petition, r