March 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > March 2008 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 166429 : March 11, 2008] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA, THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS (DOTC), AND THE MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY (MIAA) V. HON. HENRICK F. GINGOYON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 117, PASAY CITY AND PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMANILAS CO., INC., AND MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, JOSE D. LINA, JR. (INTERVENOR)) AND G.R. NO. 169914 (ASIA'S EMERGING DRAGON CORPORATION (AEDC) V. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, SECRETARY LEANDRO R. MENDOZA AND MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND MANILA CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, JOSE D. LINA, JR. (INTERVENOR) :
[G.R. No. 166429 : March 11, 2008]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA, THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS (DOTC), AND THE MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY (MIAA) V. HON. HENRICK F. GINGOYON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 117, PASAY CITY AND PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMANILAS CO., INC., AND MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, JOSE D. LINA, JR. (INTERVENOR)) AND G.R. NO. 169914 (ASIA'S EMERGING DRAGON CORPORATION (AEDC) V. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, SECRETARY LEANDRO R. MENDOZA AND MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND MANILA CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, JOSE D. LINA, JR. (INTERVENOR)
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated March 11, 2008
G.R. No. 166429 (Republic of the Philippines, represented by Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita, The Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), and the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) v. Hon. Henrick F. Gingoyon, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 117, Pasay City and Philippine International Air Termanilas Co., Inc., and Manila Hotel Corporation, represented by its President, Jose D. Lina, Jr. (Intervenor)) and G.R. No. 169914 (Asia's Emerging Dragon Corporation (AEDC) v. Department of Transportation and Communications, Secretary Leandro R. Mendoza and Manila International Airport Authority and Manila Corporation, represented by its President, Jose D. Lina, Jr. (Intervenor)). - This treats a Motion for Leave of Court (To Intervene and to Admit the Attached Answer-in-Intervention With prayer for Alternative Compliance with the December 19, 2005 Decision) filed by Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC), represented by its President, Jose D. Lina, Jr. Said motion was filed in connection with two different cases which are not consolidated with each other; namely the above-captioned case (G.R. No. 166429) and G.R. No. 169914.[1] This Resolution concerns only G.R. No. 166429.
To recall, the Decision in this case was rendered on 19 December 2005, affirming with modifications the Orders dated 4 and 10 January 2005 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 117. The Decision was reaffirmed in a Resolution dated 1 February 2006. Judgment became final on 17 March 2006.
MHC narrates that in August 2005, it purchased twenty percent (20%) of private respondent Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. (PIATCO) of investors Sojitz Corporation and SB Airport Investments, Inc. It also executed, in the same month, an agreement with Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide (Fraport) whereby it offered to purchase Fraport's 30% equity shareholdings in PIATCO for the sum of Two Hundred Million U.S. Dollars.
With respect to G.R. No. 166429, MHC asserts that because it is partly owned by the GSIS, a government-owned or controlled corporation, and because it had acquired a substantial stockholding in PAITCO, it now has legal interest in the subject matter of this case. It claims that our 19 December 2005 Decision "has not been fully executed/complied" with by the petitioners. Its apparent purpose for intervention is to propose an alternative methodology designed to "ease compliance with the said Decision by relieving the Republic et al. from the huge/humongous financial burdens" involved in complying with the dispositive portion of our Decision. In essence, MHC submits that it allowed to operate and manage the NAIA-IPT 3 for 25 years, with 82.5% of the profits resultantly earned to be distributed to various government and charitable institutions.
We deny leave to MHC's intervention om G.R. No. 166429. Our 2005 decision has long become final and executory. Generally, after judgment has become executory, the court cannot amend the same.[2] On the other hand, a motion for intervention may be allowed only before rendition of judgment in the case.[3] Clearly, the present intervention attempt is unauthorized under our rules of procedure.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Leave of Court (To Intervene and to Admit the Attached Answer-In-Intervention With Prayer for Alternative Compliance with the December 19, 2005 Decision) is hereby DENIED, and the attached Answer-in-Intervention is NOTED WITHOUT ACTION. (Azcuna, J., no part.)
G.R. No. 166429 (Republic of the Philippines, represented by Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita, The Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), and the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) v. Hon. Henrick F. Gingoyon, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 117, Pasay City and Philippine International Air Termanilas Co., Inc., and Manila Hotel Corporation, represented by its President, Jose D. Lina, Jr. (Intervenor)) and G.R. No. 169914 (Asia's Emerging Dragon Corporation (AEDC) v. Department of Transportation and Communications, Secretary Leandro R. Mendoza and Manila International Airport Authority and Manila Corporation, represented by its President, Jose D. Lina, Jr. (Intervenor)). - This treats a Motion for Leave of Court (To Intervene and to Admit the Attached Answer-in-Intervention With prayer for Alternative Compliance with the December 19, 2005 Decision) filed by Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC), represented by its President, Jose D. Lina, Jr. Said motion was filed in connection with two different cases which are not consolidated with each other; namely the above-captioned case (G.R. No. 166429) and G.R. No. 169914.[1] This Resolution concerns only G.R. No. 166429.
To recall, the Decision in this case was rendered on 19 December 2005, affirming with modifications the Orders dated 4 and 10 January 2005 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 117. The Decision was reaffirmed in a Resolution dated 1 February 2006. Judgment became final on 17 March 2006.
MHC narrates that in August 2005, it purchased twenty percent (20%) of private respondent Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. (PIATCO) of investors Sojitz Corporation and SB Airport Investments, Inc. It also executed, in the same month, an agreement with Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide (Fraport) whereby it offered to purchase Fraport's 30% equity shareholdings in PIATCO for the sum of Two Hundred Million U.S. Dollars.
With respect to G.R. No. 166429, MHC asserts that because it is partly owned by the GSIS, a government-owned or controlled corporation, and because it had acquired a substantial stockholding in PAITCO, it now has legal interest in the subject matter of this case. It claims that our 19 December 2005 Decision "has not been fully executed/complied" with by the petitioners. Its apparent purpose for intervention is to propose an alternative methodology designed to "ease compliance with the said Decision by relieving the Republic et al. from the huge/humongous financial burdens" involved in complying with the dispositive portion of our Decision. In essence, MHC submits that it allowed to operate and manage the NAIA-IPT 3 for 25 years, with 82.5% of the profits resultantly earned to be distributed to various government and charitable institutions.
We deny leave to MHC's intervention om G.R. No. 166429. Our 2005 decision has long become final and executory. Generally, after judgment has become executory, the court cannot amend the same.[2] On the other hand, a motion for intervention may be allowed only before rendition of judgment in the case.[3] Clearly, the present intervention attempt is unauthorized under our rules of procedure.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Leave of Court (To Intervene and to Admit the Attached Answer-In-Intervention With Prayer for Alternative Compliance with the December 19, 2005 Decision) is hereby DENIED, and the attached Answer-in-Intervention is NOTED WITHOUT ACTION. (Azcuna, J., no part.)
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Asia's Emerging Dragon Corporation v. Department of Trasportation and Communications, Secretary Leandro R. Mendoza, and Manila International Airport Authority.
[2] F. REGALADO, I REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM (7th ed., 1999), at 403.
[3] See 1997 RULES OF COURT, Rule 19, Sec. 2.
