PUBLIC INTEREST CENTER, INC., LAUREANO T. ANGELES, and JOCELYN P. CELESTINO Petitioners vs. HONORABLE VICENTE Q. ROXAS, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 227, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC S.A., WESTINGHOUSE INTERNATIONAL PROJECTS COMPANY, Respondents.
G.R. No. 125509 January 31, 2007
Facts:
Respondent National Power Corporation (NPC) entered into a contract with respondent Westinghouse Electric S.A. (WESA), an affiliate or subsidiary of respondent Westinghouse Electric Corporation (WESTINGHOUSE), whereby WESA undertook to construct in favor of the NPC a 620-megawatt nuclear power plant at Morong, Bataan and to supply equipment, machineries and services therefor.
WESA subsequently executed a deed of assignment transferring all its rights and responsibilities in the Contract to its construction arm-agent, respondent Westinghouse International Projects Company (WIPCO)
In 1986, President Corazon Aquino issued Executive Order (E.O.) No. 55, which was later amended by E.O. No. 98, transferring ownership of the already constructed power plant, which had become known as the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP), its equipment, materials and facilities, records and uranium fuel, to the National Government or its duly constituted agency.
The Aquino administration instituted a complaint against WESTINGHOUSE in New Jersey, U.S.A. Westinghouse later filed an arbitration case in Geneva, Switzerland.
President Ramos issued E.O. No. 265 creating the Presidential Committee on the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (PC-BNPP Committee)
the PC-BNPP Committee issued a "Resolution Adopting The Essential Terms And Conditions Arrived At By The Government Panel And Westinghouse Representatives During The Exploratory Discussions From September 29, 1995 To October 9, 1995 For A Compromise Settlement Of The BNPP Controversy And Favorably Recommending Approval Thereof To His Excellency, The President”
Petitioners, as taxpayers, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City a Complaint against herein private respondents, for declaration of nullity of the BNPP contract with application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
The Republic filed a Motion to Dismiss (With Opposition to the Application for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction) on the following grounds: (a) lis pendens and/or forum-shopping; (b) lack of legal capacity of petitioners to sue; and (c) lack of cause of action.
The RTC dismissed the complaint and denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
Petitioners then filed the present Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus With Application for A Writ Of Preliminary Injunction And Prayer For A Temporary Restraining Order directly with this Court in view of the "transcendental importance" of the issues involved.
Issues:
(1) Whether petitioners have legal standing;
(2) Whether petitioners are engaged in forum-shopping;
(3) Whether the validity of the Contract and the contracts of loan entered into by the Republic and NPC with foreign banks to finance the construction of the BNPP, and the propriety of entering into a Settlement Agreement are subject to judicial review; and
(4) Whether courts may set aside a final judgment rendered by a foreign court.
Ruling:
Legal Standing
In Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, this Court defined legal standing as follows:
"Legal standing" or locus standi has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged.
In the case of taxpayers’ suits, the party suing as a taxpayer must prove that he has sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation. Thus, taxpayers have been allowed to sue where there is a claim that public funds are illegally disbursed or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or that public funds are wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law.
Petitioners’ allegations in their Amended Complaint that the loan contracts entered into by the Republic and NPC are serviced or paid through a disbursement of public funds are not disputed by respondents, hence, they are invested with personality to institute the same.
Forum-Shopping
Forum shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another, or when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.
As explained by this Court in First Philippine International Bank v. Court of Appeals, forum-shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present, and where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. Thus, there is forum-shopping when, between an action pending before this Court and another one, there exist: "a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions, b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts, and c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action, will, regardless of which party is successful amount to res judicata in the action under consideration;
In the present case, it is evident that, vis a vis the complaint filed in Manila, there exists identity of parties or interests represented, as well as identity of rights or causes of action and reliefs sought.
Thus, the first complaint which was instituted before the Manila RTC by the Anti-Graft League of the Philippines, et al. as taxpayers’ suit, sought to declare null and void the Contract, as well as the same loan contracts entered into by herein respondents Republic and NPC with foreign banks, and to restrain said respondents from making further payments in compliance with the loan contracts which the RTC of manila dismissed. It further appears that instead of filing an appeal, the therein petitioners Anti-Graft League of the Philippines, Inc. et al. filed a petition for certiorari with this Court, which was dismissed by Resolution.
The petitioners filed a petition for mandamus with the Court of Appeals petition for mandamus was still pending before the appellate court when herein petitioners filed their complaint, later amended, before the Quezon City RTC.
When petitioners subsequently filed their Amended Complaint, however, they failed to report the pendency of the petition for mandamus before the appellate court bearing on the dismissal by the Manila RTC of the complaint filed by the Anti-Graft League of the Philippines, Inc. Public respondent’s dismissal of the Amended Complaint on the ground of forum shopping is thus in order.
No comments:
Post a Comment