The Philippine Ports Authority filed Wednesday a very urgent motion to quash the temporary restraining order issued by the Regional Trial Court against it.

The RTC ordered the PPA on July 3, 2007 to cease and desist from enforcing or implementing the revocation of the certificate of registration/permit to operate of the Bacolod Real Estate Development Corp. which took effect June 1.

PPA revoked the PTO of BREDCO for alleged violation of the permit it has granted the corporation and for imposing illegal port tariffs. The revocation meant that PPA will be charging BREDCO 100 percent usage and wharfage fees on all vessels and cargoes loaded and unloaded at the port. In its motion dated July 9, PPA, represented by Francisquile Mancile, said that the TRO issued by the Court on July 3 is null and void and irregularly issued and should therefore be quashed and set aside.

It said the Court has no jurisdiction to issue the TRO, citing Section 21 of Batas Pambansa 129 which provides that RTC's have jurisdiction to issue writs only when such writs can be enforced within its respective judicial region.

In this case, the agency or authority being sought to be enjoined all emanate from defendant PPA and its general manager who hold office in Manila, it said.

It said the TRO was issued prematurely and without due process because the motion for approval of the compromise agreement submitted by PPA and BREDCO on June 12 is still pending for approval or consideration of the Court. The same compromise agreement, which is still valid, was prompted by the Court on the basic consideration that the parties are willing to settle their differences by themselves rather than go through the rigors of litigation, it said.

It said the issuance of the TRO, without first resolving the pending motion for the approval of the compromise agreement submitted by the parties, denies defendants of their basic right to due process.

Defendants were not given prior notice that plaintiff's prayer for the hearing of the TRO was granted and that the case will be heard on such incident, it said.

It also said the TRO was improvidently and irregularly issued. The TRO also enjoins defendant "to withdraw, suspend and lift the said revocation order" if the revocation order was already implemented and enforced.

However, this portion of the TRO was not prayed for anywhere in plaintiff's complaint and that the order has no basis, it said. Thus, the trial court is not allowed by the Rules to receive evidence that tends to show a relief not sought or specified in the pleadings, it said.

It also said the collection by defendant PPA of 100 percent usage and wharfage fees on all vessels and cargoes unloaded at BREDCO port, as well as, the collection of the 10 percent share in the stevedoring and arrastre services are mere legal consequences of the revocation the plaintiff's COR/PTO.

In fact, despite the revocation of its permit, plaintiff continued to defy the regulatory authority of PPA by continuing to collect illegal tariff, it said. It said the continued existence of the TRO is without legal basis. Instead it sustains the illegal acts of the plaintiff which defendant PPA is trying to curb.*CGS

back to top