FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 194420. August 14, 2019.]
PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs.CITY OF MANILA AND CITY COUNCIL OF MANILA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 14, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 194420 (Philippine Ports Authority v. City of Manila and City Council of Manila). — This is an original petition for certiorari and prohibition 1 filed by the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) challenging the City of Manila's Resolution No. 141 (Resolution No. 141) 2 dated September 23, 2010 entitled, Resolution Adopting the Committee Report of the Ad Hoc Committee Concerning the Investigation of the Reclamation Done in the Area of Isla Puting Bato in Tondo, Manila for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. 3
We dismiss the petition for being moot. A justiciable controversy must not be moot and academic, or have no practical use or value. Simply, there must be a definite and concrete dispute touching on the legal relations of the parties who have adverse legal interests. Otherwise, the Court would simply render an advisory opinion on what the law would be on a hypothetical state of facts. The disposition of the case would not have any practical use or value as there is no actual substantial relief to which the applicant would be entitled to and which would be negated by the dismissal or denial of the petition. 4
On December 23, 1975, then President Ferdinand Marcos enacted Presidential Decree No. 857 (PD 857) or the Revised Charter of the Philippine Ports Authority. PD 857 expressly empowers the PPA, among others, to provide services within the Ports Districts "whether on its own, by contract or otherwise" and to enter into contracts for the purpose of effectively discharging its functions. 5
In 1987, PPA decided to privatize the operation of the management of the Manila International Container Terminal (MICT), an international seaport for containerized cargo at the North Harbor. The contract for MICT was bid out on July 17, 1987, where International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) participated, and subsequently won. 6
On May 19, 1988, PPA awarded to ICTSI the contract for the management, operation and development of the MICT (MICT Contract) which was effective for 25 years. The MICT Contract was later extended under the terms of the renewal/extension agreement dated April 20, 2005. On April 20, 2007, a supplemental contract to the MICT Contract of May 19, 1988 was executed by and between PPA and ICTSI. 7
One of ICTSI's principal contractual undertakings is to upgrade, expand and develop the MICT, both on the land side and the harbor basin, on the basis of its submitted port development program. The Berth 6 Project was thereafter conceptualized in order to address the estimated and projected growth of activities, to prevent the unnecessary congestion that hampers operational efficiency, to expand the terminal's cargo-handling capability, and to provide a berthing area that can accommodate post-panamax vessels. 8
Berth 6 comprises of 300-meter long container wharf, 12 hectares of support yard to be equipped with two ship-to-shore cranes, four land slide container lifting equipment, and an electric supply for refrigerated cargoes, yard lighting, and other support facilities. 9
In 1997, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources issued an environmental compliance certificate for Berth 6, which was later amended in 2008. The Philippine Reclamation Authority likewise issued a clearance for the reclamation aspect of the project on May 9, 2008. 10
Thus, on July 23, 2008, the PPA approved the Berth 6 Project and authorized ICTSI to proceed with its implementation. On the basis thereof, ICTSI implemented the Berth 6 Project, with January 2012 as its target date of completion. 11
Meanwhile, on January 18, 2005, the City Council of Manila (City Council) enacted Manila Ordinance No. 8107, instituting the Water Code for the City of Manila (Manila Water Code). 12
On August 12, 2010, the City Council passed a resolution to investigate the reclamation conducted by ICTSI pursuant to the Berth 6 Project. The investigation came about because ICTSI's reclamation was allegedly done without securing the consent of the City Mayor, and the appropriate ordinance from the City Council, in violation of the Manila Water Code. For the purpose of this investigation, the City Council formed an Ad Hoc Committee 13 which submitted its findings to the City Council through a committee report dated September 20, 2010. The committee report declared the implementation of the Berth 6 Project as illegal ab initio for being in violation of the provisions of the Manila Water Code and the Local Government Code of 1991 (Local Government Code). It recommended for the City Mayor of Manila to stop or suspend the implementation of the Berth 6 Project. 14
On September 23, 2010, the City Council issued Resolution No. 141, series of 2010, adopting the committee report. 15
PPA now comes before Us arguing that it has exclusive territorial jurisdiction and administration of the Manila Port Zone; that the provisions of the Local Government Code are inapplicable to projects and programs of the PPA within port zones; and that the directive in Resolution No. 141 to suspend the implementation of the Berth 6 Project is void because it is equivalent to an injunctive relief against a national infrastructure project, a prohibited act under Republic Act No. 8975. 16 PPA further submits the construction of a berthing facility will upgrade the Manila Port Zone which will result in a vast improvement in Philippine seaports to accommodate international container cargo traffic, that is at par with international seaports. 17
PPA therefore submits that the City of Manila and its City Council committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in enacting and implementing Resolution No. 141 for being contrary to law and jurisprudence. 18
The City Government however, argues that the Berth 6 Project is illegal ab initio for failure to comply with the requirements set forth in City Ordinance No. 8107 and provisions of the Local Government Code. 19
Meanwhile, ITCSI moved to intervene in the case, which motion We granted on June 1, 2011. 20
On January 11, 2017, We required the parties to inform the Court of the status of the construction of the Berth 6 Project. 21 In compliance with the order, ITCSI filed a compliance/manifestation 22 stating that the Berth 6 Project is complete and fully operational. The project added 300 meters of berth and 12 hectares of container storage space to the MICT, and is now equipped with three post-panamax twin left quay cranes and 10 rubber tired gantries. Similarly, PPA filed its compliance 23 stating that Berth 6 has been completed and had been fully operational on April 20, 2013. We noted these submissions in a Notice dated November 21, 2018. 24
In view of the foregoing, this case should be dismissed for having become moot and academic.
A case or issue is considered moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that an adjudication of the case or a declaration on the issue would be of no practical value or use. In such instance, there is no actual substantial relief which a petitioner would be entitled to, and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition. Courts generally decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on the ground of mootness. This is because the judgment will not serve any useful purpose or have any practical legal effect because, in the nature of things, it cannot be enforced. 25
In this case, the Berth 6 Project which Resolution No. 141 of the City of Manila sought to prohibit had already been implemented, and had been fully operational in 2013. In other words, legal relief is no longer needed or called for. On this basis, We abstain from passing upon the merits of this case. The actual case or controversy, as a necessary precedent to the court's exercise of its power of adjudication, is clearly absent.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for being MOOT and ACADEMIC.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-45.
2.Id. at 49-50.
3.Id. at 7.
4.Republic v. Mupas, G.R. No. 181892, September 8, 2015, 769 SCRA 384, 628. Citations omitted.
5.Rollo, p. 14.
6.Id.
7.Rollo, pp. 14-15.
8.Id. at 15.
9.Id.
10.Rollo, pp. 15-16.
11.Id. at 16.
12.Id.
13.Rollo, pp. 155-156.
14.Id. at 16-17.
15.Id. at 17.
16.Id. at 18; An Act to Ensure the Expeditious Implementation and Completion of Government Infrastructure Projects by Prohibiting Lower Courts from Issuing Temporary Restraining Orders, Preliminary Injunctions or Preliminary Mandatory Injunctions, Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof, and for Other Purposes.
17.Rollo, p. 3.
18.Id. at 17.
19.Id. at 4-5.
20.Id. at 249.
21.Id. at 383.
22.Id. at 384-385.
23.Id. at 389-390.
24.Id. at 397.
25. Peñafrancia Sugar Mill, Inc. v. Sugar Regulatory Administration, G.R. No. 208660, March 5, 2014, 718 SCRA 212, 217-218, citing Carpio v. CA, G.R. No. 183102, February 27, 2013, 692 SCRA 162, 174; Philippine Savings Bank (PSBANK) v. Senate Impeachment Court, G.R. No. 200238, November 20, 2012, 686 SCRA 35; Sales v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 174668, September 12, 2007, 533 SCRA 173.