July 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > July 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 179794 : July 22, 2009] WILLIAM T. ONG VS. HON. EDWIN D.SORONGON, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANDALUYONG CITY, BRANCH 214 AND MASAICHI TSUCHIYA
[G.R. NO. 179798]
NAGAYAMA-TAISEI CONSORTIUM VS. HON. EDWIN D. SORONGON, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANDALUYONG CITY, BRANCH 214 AND MASAICHI TSUCHIYA:
[G.R. No. 179794 : July 22, 2009]
WILLIAM T. ONG VS. HON. EDWIN D.SORONGON, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANDALUYONG CITY, BRANCH 214 AND MASAICHI TSUCHIYA<BR><BR>G.R. NO. 179798 - NAGAYAMA-TAISEI CONSORTIUM VS. HON. EDWIN D. SORONGON, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANDALUYONG CITY, BRANCH 214 AND MASAICHI TSUCHIYA
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 22 July 2009:
G.R. No. 179794 - WILLIAM T. ONG versus HON. EDWIN D.SORONGON, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 214 and MASAICHI TSUCHIYA
G.R. No. 179798 - NAGAYAMA-TAISEI CONSORTIUM versus HON. EDWIN D. SORONGON, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 214 and MASAICHI TSUCHIYA
The Nagayama-Taisei Consortium (NTC), composed of the Nagayama Architects Co. Ltd.; (NACL) and Taisei Corporation, two companies organized and existing under Japanese laws, executed an Exclusive and Irrevocable Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in favor of respondent Masaichi Tsuchiya (Tsuchiya) authorizing him to do the following acts in its behalf:
Through Tsuchiya, the NTC thus participated in the bidding and negotiations for the right to develop the Nampeidai Property owned by the Philippine government in Nampeidai, Japan. In October 2005, NTC acquired such right.
Tsuchiya thus negotiated with the Bids and Awards Committee and the Technical Working Group assigned to the Nampeidai Project (the project) for the preparation and execution of a Service and Development Agreement (SDA).
Being the winning bidder, the NTC had to maintain a bid security in favor of the Philippine government. On March 23, 2006, Tsuchiya's representative visited the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) to renew the NTC's application of its bid security, which was to expire on even date. He was informed, however, that William Ong (Ong), petitioner in the first above-captioned case subject of the present Decision, had earlier applied to extend the application of the bid security, he (Ong) having been issued by NACL an SPA as NACL's attorney-in-fact to do the following acts in its behalf:
Tsuchiya later received reports that Ong had been representing himself to other Philippine government agencies as an agent of NTC. Thus Ong presented to the Chairman of the Bids and Awards Committee for the development of the project, a letter from NACL President Masahiro Nagayama (Nagayama) that he had been appointed as his attorney-in-fact and that Tsuchiya was no longer authorized to act for, or engage the services of any law firm, on behalf of the NTC.[4]
Tsuchiya, alleging that despite Ong's knowledge that an Exclusive and Irrevocable SPA was issued in his (Tsuchiya's) favor, Ong fraudulently convinced and induced Nagayama to issue another SPA in his favor to deprive Tsuchiya of his expected profits, filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City a Complaint which prayed for, inter alia, the nullity of all SPAs issued in favor of Ong, and for damages, with application for issuance of temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction5 against Nagayama and Ong.
Tsuchiya prayed that Nagayama and Ong and their agents and assigns be enjoined from executing or securing the performance bond and/or the Sendee and Development Agreement- in behalf of the NTC and from preventing Tsuchiya from doing the same; from representing themselves as agents of the NTC; and from; misrepresenting that Ong replaced Tsuchiya as agent of the NTC. Tsuchiya further prayed that Nagayama be enjoined from revoking the Exclusive and Irrevocable SPA in his favor.
Tsuchiya also sought the nullification of any and all SPAs issued in favor of Ong and the revocation of the Exclusive and Irrevocable SPA in his favor, and damages.
The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. MC06-2972.
Branch 211 of the Mandaluyong City RTC issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO),[6] which was subsequently extended.[7] The TRO enjoined Nagayama and Ong or their agents and representatives
On May 2, 2006, Tsuchiya's application for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction was granted by Branch 214 of the Mandaluyong City RTC.[9] The writ ordered
Ong assailed the order granting the Writ via a Petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus before the Court of Appeals.[11] The appellate court, by decision of May 31, 2006,[12] annulled the writ. Tsuchiya filed a Motion for Reconsideration.[13]
In the meantime or on July 13, 2006, the NTC manifested that on June 23, 2006, Nagayama revoked the SPAs in favor of Ong and Tsuchiya and was personally representing NTC in the project.[14] On even date, Tsuchiya filed before the appellate court a Supplemental Pleading[15] to his Motion for Reconsideration, praying that Ong's petition for certiorari be dismissed as Nagayama's revocation of the SPA in his (Ong's) favor deprived him of legal standing to pursue the case.
On July 19, 2006, the NTC filed before the Court cl Appeals a Motion for Leave to Intervene.[16]
By Resolution of February 16, 2007, the Court of Appeals dismissed Ong's petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus for being moot and academic,[17] drawing Ong to file the present Petition,[18] G.R No. 179794, faulting the appellate court
In the meantime, the NTC filed before this Court a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review,[20] up to November 8, 2007, of also the appellate court's February 16, 2007 Resolution. NTC's case was docketed by this Court as. G.R. No. 179798, the second above-captioned petition subject of the present Decision. By Manifestation and Motion[21] filed on January 30, 2008, however, the NTC informed this Court that
The Court now thus considered the petition of NTC in G.R. No. 179798 terminated.
This leaves only the petition of Ong in G.R. No. 179794 for the Court's decision.
Ong's petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals sought to annul the TRO issued by Branch 11 of the RTC and the writ of preliminary injunction issued by Branch 214, and to enjoin the enforcement of the said orders.
To recall, the Writ of Preliminary Injunction and the Temporary Restraining Order enjoined Ong from carrying out the acts specified in the SPA issued in his favor. With Nagayama's revocation of the SPA in favor of Ong. however, there is no more SPA, the carrying out of which the RTC enjoined. Ong's petition for certiorari before the appellate court indeed had become moot and academic.
WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 179794 is DISMISSED. The petition in G.R. No. 179798 is Closed and Terminated.
Costs against petitioner. Brion, J, on official business.
WITNESS the Honorable Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Chairperson, Honorable Conchita Carpio Morales, Minita Chico-Nazario (designated additional member per S.O. No. 658), Teresita Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S.O. No. 635), and Diosdado M. Peralta (designated additional member per S.O. No. 664), Members, Second Division, this 22nd day of July, 2009.
G.R. No. 179794 - WILLIAM T. ONG versus HON. EDWIN D.SORONGON, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 214 and MASAICHI TSUCHIYA
G.R. No. 179798 - NAGAYAMA-TAISEI CONSORTIUM versus HON. EDWIN D. SORONGON, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 214 and MASAICHI TSUCHIYA
The Nagayama-Taisei Consortium (NTC), composed of the Nagayama Architects Co. Ltd.; (NACL) and Taisei Corporation, two companies organized and existing under Japanese laws, executed an Exclusive and Irrevocable Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in favor of respondent Masaichi Tsuchiya (Tsuchiya) authorizing him to do the following acts in its behalf:
To negotiate for the improvement of offer with, to comply with the condition of award and enter into a Service and Development Agreement with the Government of the'Philippines ("GOP") undc such terms, conditions, and provisions as he may deem advisable, with respect to the development of the GOP Nampeidai (Tokyo, Japan) Property, subject of the bidding held on 28 November 2003.
To engage the. services, of Consultants ani'or Legal Counsels, namely the Britanico Sarrniento & Franco Law Office and all its attorneys, under such terms, conditions, and provisions as he may deem appropriate, for the purpose of acquiring said right to develop the Nampeidai Property.
To execute, sign, and deliver any document and/or contract necessary or requisite to and in pursuance of, including but not limited to the Service and Development Agreement with respect to the Nampeidai Property and/or with the Consultants and/or Legal Counsels above referred to.
To perform any and all acts necessary for the bid, negotiations, award of the project and execution of the Service and Development Agreement.[1]
The said SPA stated that:
A bilateral contract depends upon this Exclusive and Irrevocable Special Power of Attorney for the same is the means pf fulfilling an obligation of the principal. Based on the nature of this agency coupled with an interest, the principal shall not revoke this Exclusive and Irrevocable Special Power of Attorney.
The parties hereby agree that any legal action arising from this Exclusive and Irrevocable Special Power of Attorney shall be exclusively filed in the appropriate courts of Metro Manila, Philippines.[2]
Through Tsuchiya, the NTC thus participated in the bidding and negotiations for the right to develop the Nampeidai Property owned by the Philippine government in Nampeidai, Japan. In October 2005, NTC acquired such right.
Tsuchiya thus negotiated with the Bids and Awards Committee and the Technical Working Group assigned to the Nampeidai Project (the project) for the preparation and execution of a Service and Development Agreement (SDA).
Being the winning bidder, the NTC had to maintain a bid security in favor of the Philippine government. On March 23, 2006, Tsuchiya's representative visited the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) to renew the NTC's application of its bid security, which was to expire on even date. He was informed, however, that William Ong (Ong), petitioner in the first above-captioned case subject of the present Decision, had earlier applied to extend the application of the bid security, he (Ong) having been issued by NACL an SPA as NACL's attorney-in-fact to do the following acts in its behalf:
1. To negotiate on behalf of NAGAYAMA with the Government Service Insurance System and/or any other government institutions for the purpose of executing a Service and Development Agreement and the necessary Performance and/or Property Bond that may be put up pursuant to the terms and conditions of the stud Service and Development Agreement to be entered into by and between the Government of the Philippines and NAGAYAMA with respect to the development of the Nampeidai Property in Tokyo, Japan, under such terms, conditions as my attorney-in-fact, may deem just and reasonable.
2. To engage, at the expense of NAGAYAMA, the services of consultants and/or legal counsels under such terms, conditions and provisions as he may reasonably deem appropriate in relation to the above negotiation.[3]
Tsuchiya later received reports that Ong had been representing himself to other Philippine government agencies as an agent of NTC. Thus Ong presented to the Chairman of the Bids and Awards Committee for the development of the project, a letter from NACL President Masahiro Nagayama (Nagayama) that he had been appointed as his attorney-in-fact and that Tsuchiya was no longer authorized to act for, or engage the services of any law firm, on behalf of the NTC.[4]
Tsuchiya, alleging that despite Ong's knowledge that an Exclusive and Irrevocable SPA was issued in his (Tsuchiya's) favor, Ong fraudulently convinced and induced Nagayama to issue another SPA in his favor to deprive Tsuchiya of his expected profits, filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City a Complaint which prayed for, inter alia, the nullity of all SPAs issued in favor of Ong, and for damages, with application for issuance of temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction5 against Nagayama and Ong.
Tsuchiya prayed that Nagayama and Ong and their agents and assigns be enjoined from executing or securing the performance bond and/or the Sendee and Development Agreement- in behalf of the NTC and from preventing Tsuchiya from doing the same; from representing themselves as agents of the NTC; and from; misrepresenting that Ong replaced Tsuchiya as agent of the NTC. Tsuchiya further prayed that Nagayama be enjoined from revoking the Exclusive and Irrevocable SPA in his favor.
Tsuchiya also sought the nullification of any and all SPAs issued in favor of Ong and the revocation of the Exclusive and Irrevocable SPA in his favor, and damages.
The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. MC06-2972.
Branch 211 of the Mandaluyong City RTC issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO),[6] which was subsequently extended.[7] The TRO enjoined Nagayama and Ong or their agents and representatives
xxx from making representations to be the duly authorized representative to execute and/or to secure the Performance Bond and/or the Service and Development Agreement on behalf of Nagayama-Taisei Consortium and/or revoking the Exclusive and Irrevocable Special Power of Attorney of the plaintiff, until the propriety of granting the injunction is fully determined.[8]
On May 2, 2006, Tsuchiya's application for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction was granted by Branch 214 of the Mandaluyong City RTC.[9] The writ ordered
xxx that, until further orders, herein defendant WILLIAM T. ONG and/or any of his agents, assigns, or representatives from representing himself as the lawful and authorized agent of Nagayama-Taisei Consortium by executing or securing the Performance Bond and/or the Service and Development Agreement with the Philippine Government or any of its subdivisions, officials, agencies or departments on behalf of the Nagayama-Taisei Consortium: enjoining defendant Masahiro Nagayama from revoking the Exclusive and Irrevocable Special Power of Attorney issued to plaintiff Masaichi Tsuchiya by Nagayama-Taisei Consortium; and, enjoining defendants, their agents[,] assigns or representatives from acting for and in behalf in preventing plaintiff from exercising his rights under the Exclusive and Irrevocable Special Power of Attorney.[10]
Ong assailed the order granting the Writ via a Petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus before the Court of Appeals.[11] The appellate court, by decision of May 31, 2006,[12] annulled the writ. Tsuchiya filed a Motion for Reconsideration.[13]
In the meantime or on July 13, 2006, the NTC manifested that on June 23, 2006, Nagayama revoked the SPAs in favor of Ong and Tsuchiya and was personally representing NTC in the project.[14] On even date, Tsuchiya filed before the appellate court a Supplemental Pleading[15] to his Motion for Reconsideration, praying that Ong's petition for certiorari be dismissed as Nagayama's revocation of the SPA in his (Ong's) favor deprived him of legal standing to pursue the case.
On July 19, 2006, the NTC filed before the Court cl Appeals a Motion for Leave to Intervene.[16]
By Resolution of February 16, 2007, the Court of Appeals dismissed Ong's petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus for being moot and academic,[17] drawing Ong to file the present Petition,[18] G.R No. 179794, faulting the appellate court
I.
X X X IN FINDING THAT PETITIONER LOST HIS PERSONALITY TO PURSUE THE PETITION;
II.
XXX IN SETTING ASIDE THE DECISION DATED MAY 31, 2006 ON THE GROUND THAT THE PETITION HAS BECOME MOOT AND ACADEMIC;
III.
XXX IN DISMISSING THE PETITION CONSIDERING THAT THE DISMISSAL OF THE SAME NOT ON THE MERITS WOULD REINSTATE THE VOID ORDERS OF THE COURT A QUO; AND
IV.
X X X IN NOT HOLDING PRIVATE RESPONDENT TSUCHIYA IN CONTEMPT.[19]
In the meantime, the NTC filed before this Court a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review,[20] up to November 8, 2007, of also the appellate court's February 16, 2007 Resolution. NTC's case was docketed by this Court as. G.R. No. 179798, the second above-captioned petition subject of the present Decision. By Manifestation and Motion[21] filed on January 30, 2008, however, the NTC informed this Court that
'[a]fter carefully realizing that it will only cause delay in the proceeding below (RTC Mandaluyong City, Branch 214), it decided not to pursue its petition and instead voluntarily submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the court a quo and filed its answer to the complaint filed by private respondent Masaichi Tsuchiya in order to ventilate and resolve the issues speedily."[22] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The Court now thus considered the petition of NTC in G.R. No. 179798 terminated.
This leaves only the petition of Ong in G.R. No. 179794 for the Court's decision.
Ong's petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals sought to annul the TRO issued by Branch 11 of the RTC and the writ of preliminary injunction issued by Branch 214, and to enjoin the enforcement of the said orders.
To recall, the Writ of Preliminary Injunction and the Temporary Restraining Order enjoined Ong from carrying out the acts specified in the SPA issued in his favor. With Nagayama's revocation of the SPA in favor of Ong. however, there is no more SPA, the carrying out of which the RTC enjoined. Ong's petition for certiorari before the appellate court indeed had become moot and academic.
WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 179794 is DISMISSED. The petition in G.R. No. 179798 is Closed and Terminated.
Costs against petitioner. Brion, J, on official business.
WITNESS the Honorable Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Chairperson, Honorable Conchita Carpio Morales, Minita Chico-Nazario (designated additional member per S.O. No. 658), Teresita Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S.O. No. 635), and Diosdado M. Peralta (designated additional member per S.O. No. 664), Members, Second Division, this 22nd day of July, 2009.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Asst. Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Records, Folder 1, Exclusive and Irrevocable Special Power of Attorney, Annex "A." (All Record Folders are unpaged).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Id., Special Power of Attorney, Annex "B."
[4] Id., Letter to Gabriel Singson, Annex "D."
[5] Id.
[6] Id., Order of April 5, 2006.
[7] Id., Order of April 11,2006.
[8] Id., Order of April 11, 2006.
[9] Records, Folder 2, Order of May 2, 2006; Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated May 5, 2006.
[10] Id., Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated May 5. 2006.
[11] CA rollo, pp. 2-65.
[12] Id. at 569-596.
[13] Id. at 409-436.
[14] Id. at 498, 506-507.
[15] Id. at 511-521.
[16] Id. at. 546-551.
[17] Resolution of February 16, -2007, penned by Court of Appeals Associate Justice Marina L. Buzon, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Renato C. Dacudao and Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa. Id. at 768-776.
[18] Rollo (G.R. No. 179794), pp. 12-64.
[19] Id., at 29-30.
[20] Rollo (G.R. No. 179798), pp. 3-12.
[21] Id. at pp. 15-20. 22 Id. at 16.
[22] Id. at 16
