FACTS:
MSI entered into an 4 interim
lease agreement with DBP, owner of Bayview Plaza Hotel, where it would operate
the hotel for a minimum of 3 months or until such time that the said properties
are sold to MSI or other 3rd parties by DBP.
The Bayview Hotel was subsequently
identified for privatization under Proclamation No. 50 and was consequently
transferred from DBP to Asset Privatization Trust for disposition. The DBP
notified MSI that it was terminating the interim lease agreement to effect the
disposition of the property. The APT granted the President of MSI's condition
an extension of 30 days within which to effect the delivery of the Bayview
Hotel to APT.
However, MSI sent a letter to APT stating that in their
opinion, having leased the property for more than 1 year the agreement is long
term in character and MSI have acquired preference in buying the property,
while emphasizing that MSI has a legal lien on the property because of its
advances for the hotel operations and repairs which amounted to P12 Million.
APT answered MSI saying that there was no agreement to that
effect. The bidding took place but MSI did not participate. Makati-Agro Trading
and La Filipina Uy Gongco Corporation were awarded the property as the highest
bidder for P85 Million. MSI filed a complaint with injunction on awarding and
transfer of the property to the winning bidders. Trial court granted, but the
CA reversed the trial court ruling for being violative to Sec 1 of Proclamation
No. 50: "No court or administrative
agency shall issue any restraining order or injunction against the trust in
connection with the acquisition, sale or disposition of assets transferred to
it. Nor shall such order or injunction be issued against any purchaser of
assets sold by the Trust to prevent such purchaser from taking possession of
any assets purchased by him."
The CA rejected the TC's opinion that said proclamation is
unconstitutional, rather it up held that it continues to be operative after the
effectivity of the 1987 Constitution by virtue of Section 3 Art.XVIII. It also
noted that MSI has not been deprived of its property rights since those rights
are non-existent and its only property right was the alleged reimbursable
advances made to DBP, which it may sue to collect in a separate action. It
further held that the issuance of writ of preliminary injunction by the lower
court against APT may not be justified as a valid exercise of judicial power
for MSI does not have a legally demandable and enforceable right of retention
over the said property.
ISSUE:
WoN the CA erred in not declaring unconstitutional Sec. 31 of
Proclamation No. 50, prohibiting the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction by the TC.
RULING:
Sec 31 of Proclamation No. 50-A does not infringe any
provision of the Constitution. It does not impair the inherent power of courts
to settle actual controversies which are legally demandable and enforceable and
to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the government". (Sec 1 Art. VIII). The power to
define, prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts belongs
to the legislature, except that it may not deprive the Supreme Court of its
jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5, Article VIII of the
Constitution (Sec. 2, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution).
Courts may not substitute their judgement for that of the
APT, nor block, by an injunction, the discharge of its functions and the
implementation of its decisions in connection with the acquisition, sale or
disposition of assets transferred to it.
There can be no justification for judicial interference in
the business of an administrative agency, except when it violates a citizen's
constitutional rights, or commits a grave abuse of discretion, or acts in
excess of, or without jurisdiction.
