THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, et al. VS. HON. SILVINO T. PAMPILO, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANILA, BRANCH 26, et al.
G.R.
No. 188760, June 30, 2020
CHEVRON
PHILIPPINES, INC. VS. HON. SILVINO T. PAMPILO, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 26, et al.
G.R.
No. 189060
PETRON
CORPORATION, et al. VS. HON. SILVINO T. PAMPILO, JR. et al.
G.R. No. 189333
FACTS:
On
March 21, 2003, private respondent Social Justice Society (SJS) 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), collectively referred to as the “Big 3.” In its Petition,
private respondent SJS accused the oil companies for violating Article 1867 of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and enganging in a “combination or concerted
action” used in Section 11 (a)8 of Republic Act (RA) No. 8479. The Big 3
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.
Public
respondent RTC issued an Order denying the motions to dismiss and directing the
parties to refer the matter to the Joint Task Force of the Department of Energy
(DOE) and Department of Justice (DOJ) pursuant to Section 11 of RA 8479. In the
meantime, public respondent RTC ordered the suspension of the proceedings.
The
DOE-DOJ Joint Task Force submitted its Report finding no clear evidence that
the Big 3 violated Article 186 of the RPC or Section 11 (a) of RA 8479. Based
on the said report, the Big 3 orally moved for the dismissal of the case.
Private respondents, on the other hand, moved to open and examine the books of
account of the Big 3 to enable the court to determine whether Section 11 (a) of
RA 8479 had been violated.
Public
respondent RTC issued the first assailed Order, which resolved to:
1.
deny
the motions to dismiss of the Big 3;
2.
grant
private respondents' motion to open and examine the books of accounts of the
Big 3; and
3.
order
the Commission on Audit (COA), Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), and the Bureau
of Customs (BOC) to open and examine the books of accounts of the Big 3.
On
May 5, 2009, public respondent RTC issued the 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 to submit a report thereon within three (3) months from receipt of
the Order.
On
June 23, 2009, public respondent RTC issued the third assailed Order, granting
Pasang Masda's Motion for Intervention and thereby admitting its
Petition-in-Intervention.
On
July 7, 2009, the RTC issued the fourth assailed Order denying the motions for
reconsideration of the Big 3 and the OSG and granting private respondents'
motion to include private respondent Cabigao as part of the panel of examiners.
Public respondent RTC stood pat on its April 27, 2009 Order citing the doctrine
of parens patriae.
A
few days later, on July 24, 2009, the RTC, acting on the manifestation of
private respondents that the government agencies have not acted to comply with
its order, directed the COA, the BIR, and the BOC to explain within 72 hours
from notice why they should not be cited in contempt for failure to comply.
The
RTC issued an Order giving the Chairman of COA and the Commissioners of the BIR
and BOC five (5) days from receipt of the notice within which to file a comment
or opposition to the motion for the issuance of a warrant of arrest against
them.
ISSUE:
WON the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed orders.
RULING:
Yes, the public respondent RTC
committed grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the Amended Petition for
Declaratory Relief; 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 of examiners”; and allowing Pasang Masda to intervene in the case.
An action for declaratory relief is
not the proper remedy. The core issue involved in the Amended Petition is
whether the business practice of the Big 3 violates the RPC and RA 8479. This,
however, cannot be made the subject matter of a declaratory relief. Private
respondents filed their Amended Petition based on acts already committed or
being committed by the Big 3, which they believe are in violation of the RPC
and RA 8479. It appears therefore that the filing of the Amended Petition was
done on the assumption that there was already a breach or violation on the part
of the Big 3, which cannot be the subject of a declaratory relief. It must be
stressed that an action for declaratory relief presupposes that there has been
no actual breach as such action is filed only for the purpose of securing an
authoritative statement of the rights and obligations of the parties under a
contract, deed or statute. It cannot be availed of if the statute, deed or
contract has been breached or violated because, in such a case, the remedy is
for the aggrieved party to file the appropriate ordinary civil action in court.
Upon, receipt of the report of the DOE-DOJ
Joint Task Force that there was no violation committed by the Big 3, the RTC,
instead of dismissing the case, ordered the COA, the BIR, and the BOC to open
and examine the books of accounts of the Big 3 and even allowed private
respondent Cabigao to be part of the panel of examiners. In doing so, the trial
court divested the DOE-DOJ Joint Task Force of its power and authority and
vested the same to the COA, the BIR, the BOC and private respondent Cabigao. To
justify its orders, the public respondent trial court invokes the doctrine of
parens patriae. Under the doctrine of parens patriae (father of his country),
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.
This doctrine, however, 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. Public respondent RTC, therefore, cannot
create a new panel of examiners to replace the DOE-DOJ Joint Task Force as this
goes against RA 8479.
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 in the
instant case. The case of the Big 3 would not fall under the audit jurisdiction
of COA. They are not public entities nor are they non governmental entities
receiving financial aid from the government.
Pasang Masda failed to satisfy all the
requirements for intervention. As regards the issue of 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 of 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.
In this case, Pasang Masda's allegation that
its members consume petroleum products is not sufficient to show that they have
legal interest in the matter being litigated considering that there are other
oil players in the market aside from the Big 3. Jurisprudence mandates that legal
interest must be actual, substantial, material, direct and immediate, and not simply
contingent or expectant. Such is not the situation in this case. In fact, there
is no showing that Pasang Masda has something to gain or lose in the outcome of
the case. Thus, it was grave abuse of discretion on the part of public
respondent RTC in allowing Pasang Masda to intervene despite its failure to
comply with the first requirement.
No comments:
Post a Comment