PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, CALTEX PHILIPPINES, INC., AND PETRON CORPORATION (NECESSARY PARTIES)
FACTS:
On March 21, 2003, a private respondent Social Justice Society (SJS), a political party duly registered with the Commission of Elections, filed with the RTC of Manila, a Petition for Declaratory Relief against Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (Shell); Caltex Philippines, Inc. (Caltex), and Petron Corporation (Petron). Private respondent (SJS) raised as an issue the oil companies' business practice of increasing the prices of the their petroleum products whenever the price of crude oil increases in the world market despite that fact that they had purchased their inventories at a much lower price.
SJS argued that the said practice constitutes monopoly and combination in restraint of trade, prohibited under Article 186 of the Revised Penal Code. They likewise contented that the acts of these oil companies of increasing the prices of its oil products whenever their competitors increase their prices fall under the term "combination or concerted action" in Section 11 (a) of Republic Act No. 8479, otherwise known as the Downstream Oil Industry Deregulation Act of 1998.
The Big 3 (Shell, Caltex and Petron) separately moved for the dismissal of the case on the grounds of lack of legal standing, lack of cause of action, lack of jurisdiction and failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
The Regional Trial Court denied the Motion to Dismiss and granted the Motion for the Opening and Examination of the Books of Account of the Big 3. The latter sought reconsideration, separately.
The RTC issued a second assailed Order, directing the Chairman of COA and the Commissioners of the BIR and the BOC to form a panel of examiners to conduct an examination of the books of accounts of the Big 3 and submit a report thereon within three (3) months from receipt of the Order. The three (3) agencies, though not parties to the case, filed a motion for reconsideration of the Orders on the ground that the order of examination is unwarranted and beyond their respective jurisdiction.
A private respondent-intervenor Pangkalahatang Sanggunian Manila and Suburbs Drivers' Association Nationwide (Pasang Masda), Inc. also filed a Motion for Intervention with attached Petition-in-Intervention. The said motion was granted by the RTC and thereby admitting its Petition-in-Intervention.
The government agencies (COA, BIR and BOC) have not acted to comply with the RTC order and hereby asked by the latter to explain within 72 hours from notice why they should not be cited in contempt for failure to comply. However, the former refused to obey the said order by the RTC. Private respondents moved for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
COA, BIR and BOC, represented by the Chairman and their respective Commissioners, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Petition for Certiorari with Application for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction assailing the Orders of the public respondent RTC.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the public respondent RTC gravely abused its discretion in ordering the COA, the BIR and the BOC to examine the books of accounts of the Big 3 and in including private respondent Cabigao as part of the panel examiners.
Whether or not the public respondent RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing Pasang Masda to intervene in the case.
RULING:
The Court ruled that the petition for declaratory relief is not the proper remedy.
A petition for declaratory relief is an action instituted by a person interested in a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, executive order or resolution, to determine any question of construction or validity arising from the instrument, executive order or regulation, or statute and for a declaration of his rights and duties thereunder. It must be filed before the breach or violation of the statute, deed or contract to which it refers; otherwise, the court can no longer assume jurisdiction over the action. Thus, "the only issue that may be raised in such is the question of construction or validity of provisions in an instrument or statute".
The DOE-DOJ Joint Task Force is duly authorized by law to investigate and to order the prosecution of cartelization.
The public respondent trial court invokes doctrine of parens patriae. Under this doctrine, the judiciary, as an agency of the State, has the supreme power and authority to intervene and to provide protection to persons non sui juris - those who because of their age or incapacity are unable to care and fend for themselves. However, this doctrine cannot be applied in this case considering that Congress by enacting RA 8479 has already provided for the mechanism to protect the interest of the Filipino consumers. The court held that public respondent RTC cannot create a new panel of examiners to replace the DOE-DOJ Joint Task Force as this goes against RA 8479.
Besides, it is beyond the mandates of the COA, the BIR and the BOC to open and examine the books of accounts of the Big 3.
On the other hand, the motion for intervention filed by Pasang Masda failed to satisfy all requirements for intervention.
Section 1, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court requires that: (1) the movant must have a legal interest in the matter being litigated; (2) the intervention must not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the parties; and (3) the claim for the intervenor must not be capable of being properly decided in a separate proceeding. The right to intervene, however, is not an absolute right as the granting of a motion to intervene is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and may only be allowed if the movant is able to satisfy all the requirements.
Wherefore, the Consolidated Petitions are GRANTED and the Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Manila are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) dated August 4, 2009 is hereby made PERMANENT. Accordingly, the Petition for Declaratory Relief is ordered DISMISSED.
No comments:
Post a Comment