G.R. No. L-28756 January 31, 1972 - HON. ANTONIO V.

RAQUIZ…REME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY 07/05/2018, 1*40 PM

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Like 0 Tweet Share

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1972 > January 1972 Decisions > G.R. No. L-28756 January 31,
1972 - HON. ANTONIO V. RAQUIZA v. EQUIPMENT MARKETING CORPORATION:

Custom Search Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-28756. January 31, 1972.]

HON. ANTONIO V. RAQUIZA, as Secretary of Public Works and Communications and HON.
BALTAZAR AQUINO, as Commissioner of Public Highways, Petitioners, v. EQUIPMENT
MARKETING CORPORATION, and HON. WALFRIDO DE LOS ANGELES, as Presiding Judge of
Branch IV of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (sitting in Quezon City), Respondents.

Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo and Solicitor Augusto M. Amores, for Petitioners.

Aquino, Castro and Ventura Law Offices for Private Respondent.

Macario J. Fernandez for intervenor.

Francisco "Soc" Rodrigo as amicus curiae.

SYLLABUS

DebtKollect Company, Inc.
1. REMEDIAL LAW; PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION; DISMISSAL AS MOOT; PETITION FOR
PROHIBITION WITH PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION INVOLVING SAME PARTIES AND SAME CAUSE OF ACTION
FILED BY RESPONDENT IN ANOTHER COURT, ACT TO BE ENJOINED, IMPLEMENTED. — This petition for
certiorari and prohibition filed in order to restrain respondent judge from implementing its restraining
order, of Jan. 17, 1968, enjoining petitioners "from making a final award in favor of Toyo Menka Kaisha,
Ltd., and in the event that an award has been made in favor of the said bidder, the same be set aside, . .
.", is dismissed for being moot and academic. This is so because a new petition, seeking the same relief
as that filed in the sala of respondent judge, involving the same parties and same cause of action, was
filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila, by respondent Equipment Marketing Corporation against Hon.
Baltazar Aquino, petitioner herein. Furthermore, the purchase sought to be restrained by respondent
judge had actually been implemented and the Bureau of Public Highways had long time ago received all
the cranes covered by the contract of sale and had long been using these equipment in its different
projects.

RESOLUTION

FERNANDO, J.:

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1972januarydecisions.php?id=14 Page 1 of 3
G.R. No. L-28756 January 31, 1972 - HON. ANTONIO V. RAQUIZ…REME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
ChanRobles Intellectual Property
Division
January-1972 Jurisprudence
G.R. No. L-33541 January 20, 1972 - ABDULGAFAR
PUÑGUTAN v. BENJAMIN ABUBAKAR
G.R. No. L-30491 January 21, 1972 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL v. JOSE CAÑETE
G.R. No. L-24420 January 26, 1972 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL v. JOSE T. SURTIDA
Adm. .Case. No. 174-J January 28, 1972 - SIMEON
TOLENTINO v. JOSE C. COLAYCO
G.R. No. L-24005 January 29, 1972 - UNIVERSAL
MILLS CORPORATION v. BUREAU OF CUSTOMS
Adm. Case No. 389 January 31, 1972 - IN RE:
DISBARMENT OF ARMANDO PUNO v. ARMANDO PUNO
G.R. No. L-20174 January 31, 1972 - IN THE
MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED A
CITIZEN OF THE PHIL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.
G.R. No. L-25802 January 31, 1972 - DEVELOPMENT
BANK OF THE PHIL. v. LEONOR R. VDA. DE MOLL
G.R. No. L-25885 January 31, 1972 - LUZON
BROKERAGE CO., INC. v. MARITIME BUILDING CO.,
INC.
G.R. No. L-25890 January 31, 1972 - EUGENIO
INTING v. PEDRO BELDEROL
G.R. No. L-26695 January 31, 1972 - JUANITA
LOPEZ GUILAS v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE OF PAMPANGA
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1972januarydecisions.php?id=14
07/05/2018, 1*40 PM
A petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction was filed on behalf of the then
secretary of Public Works and Communications, Antonio V. Raquiza, and the Commissioner of Public
Highways, Baltazar Aquino, against respondents Equipment Marketing Corporation and Judge Walfrido de
los Angeles of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch IV. It sought in its prayer for a preliminary
injunction to restrain respondent Judge from executing, enforcing and implementing a restraining order of
January 17, 1968 enjoining petitioners "from making a final award in favor of Toyo Menka Kaisha, Ltd.,
and in the event that an award has been made in favor of the said bidder, the same be set aside; . . .
from considering any and all awards made to any bidder or from implementing the said award by the
execution of any contract or by opening the Letters of Credit in favor of said bidder’s suppliers; . . . ." 1
Such restraining order was issued in favor of respondent Equipment Marketing Corporation, the plaintiff in
a case filed with respondent Judge on January 15, 1968, seeking in its complaint that it be awarded the
bid for the supply and delivery of 100 units of truck-mounted cranes. Notwithstanding a motion on
January 25, 1968 which questioned the jurisdiction of respondent Judge and alleged that there was no
cause of action as plaintiff, now respondent, Equipment Marketing Corporation’s bid did not comply with
the advertised specifications and was not the most advantageous to the government as it offered the
highest rate of interest and the longest period of amortization, unlike that of another firm, Toyo Kaisha,
Ltd., which offered the most advantages, respondent Judge did not lift the restraining order. Hence this
petition before this Court on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, as the offices of the petitioners where they
actually performed their official duties are in Manila and not Rizal, and grave abuse of discretion for
issuing such restraining order notwithstanding the showing of non-compliance with the terms of the bid as
well as the undeniable fact that it was not the most advantageous to the government.
On March 12, 1968, this Court issued a resolution requiring respondents to answer and enjoined
respondent Judge from enforcing his restraining order. The answer on behalf of respondent Equipment
Marketing Corporation and respondent Judge was duly filed on March 25, 1968 asserting both the
jurisdiction of the lower court and the advantageous character of its bid as contrasted with that of Toyo
Menka Kaisha, Ltd. which, in the meanwhile, had filed the petition to intervene. It prayed for the lifting of
the restraining order of this Court and the dismissal of the petition. There was a reply on behalf of
petitioners filed on April 8, 1968. Thereafter, the Court set the case for oral argument on May 15, 1968.
The then Solicitor General, now Justice, Antonio P. Barredo, argued on behalf of petitioners, with counsel
for respondents doing the same. The Court, in its resolution of May 15, 1968, likewise granted the motion
for intervention filed by counsel for Toyo Menka Kaisha, Ltd. The parties, including Attorney Francisco Soc
Rodrigo who in the meanwhile was granted permission to appear as amicus curiae, were given a period of
ten days within which to submit additional memoranda.
The first memorandum, submitted on May 20, 1968, came from the amicus curiae, followed by that of the
intervenor Toyo Menka Kaisha, Ltd. The memorandum was filed on behalf of petitioners on June 11, 1968.
Then they submitted a pleading on June 19, 1968, wherein it was alleged that respondent Equipment
Marketing Corporation, on June 6, 1968, filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila a suit for
prohibition with preliminary injunction, docketed as Civil Case No. 73216 against petitioners as well as
intervenor Toyo Menka Kaisha, Ltd. It was therein further stated that by ventilating the issues of the case
at bar before the Court of First Instance of Manila, respondent Equipment Marketing Corporation did
submit itself to the jurisdiction of such court and did acknowledge the absence thereof on the part of
respondent Court. Moreover, it was set forth in the supplemental petition that the filing of such Civil Case
No. 73216 had in fact rendered moot and academic the case before respondent Court, out of which this
petition arose. That was followed by a manifestation on the part of petitioners wherein it reiterated that
the matter has now become moot and academic, not only due to the execution of March 21, 1968 of the
contract of sale of the 100 units of truck-mounted cranes by the Toyo Menka Kaisha, Ltd. and the Bureau
of Public Highways with the opening of the corresponding letters of credit covering the value of the
equipment expected to arrive before the end of June. To all such pleadings, there was no response on the
part of respondents.
This Court, then, on October 27, 1971, issued the following resolution: "It being shown on the record that
there was docketed with the Court of First Instance of Manila on June 6, 1968 a petition for prohibition
with preliminary injunction with respondent Equipment Marketing Corporation as petitioner therein against
Commissioner Baltazar Aquino of the Bureau of Public Highways, one of the herein petitioners, as one of
the respondents therein involving the same parties and cause of action, and in effect seeking the same
relief, the parties are hereby required, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of this resolution, to show
cause why the present petition should not be dismissed for being moot and academic." There was a
manifestation and motion duly filed in accordance with the above resolution by Solicitor General Felix Q.
Antonio, wherein an indorsement from Commissioner Baltazar Aquino was attached as Annex B. Its
concluding paragraph reads as follows: "Considering that the purchase had actually been implemented
and this Office had long time ago received all the cranes covered by the contract of sale, and had long
been using these equipment in the different projects under this Bureau, it is the considered view of this
Office that this case has now become moot and academic, because the action sought to be enjoined is
already a ‘fait accompli’." 2 Again, the resolution of this Court met with nothing but silence on the part of
respondents. At the very least, it would indicate that the facts as set forth by the Office of the Solicitor
General could not be successfully contradicted.
WHEREFORE, as prayed for by petitioners, their petition for certiorari and prohibition is dismissed for
being moot and academic. Without pronouncement as to costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Villamor and Makasiar, JJ., concur.
Teehankee, J., took no part.
Barredo, J., did not take part.
Endnotes:
1. Petition, p. 8.
2. Annex B, Manifestation and Motion, November 29, 1971.
Back to Home | Back to Main
Page 2 of 3
G.R. No. L-28756 January 31, 1972 - HON. ANTONIO V. RAQUIZ…REME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY 07/05/2018, 1*40 PM

G.R. No. L-27172 January 31, 1972 - PROVINCIAL

FISCAL NATALIO P. AMARGA v. HON. CIPRIANO QUICK SEARCH
VAMENTA, JR.

G.R. No. L-27172 January 31, 1972 - AMANTE

PURISIMA v. HON. DEOGRACIAS S. SOLIS
1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
G.R. No. L-28756 January 31, 1972 - HON. 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
ANTONIO V. RAQUIZA v. EQUIPMENT MARKETING
CORPORATION 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
G.R. No. L-29125 January 31, 1972 - PROCTER &
GAMBLE TRADING COMPANY v. MUNICIPALITY OF 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
MEDINA, MISAMIS ORIENTAL 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948

G.R. No. L-29275 January 31, 1972 - FLORENTINO 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
PANGILINAN, ET., AL. v. HON. ANDRES AGUILAR 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964

G.R. No. L-29935 January 31, 1972 - PEOPLE OF 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO C. TOREJAS 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

G.R. No. L-30247 January 31, 1972 - VICTOR H. M. 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
GUTIERREZ v. HON. NUMERIANO ESTENZO 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

G.R. No. L-30977 January 31, 1972 - CARMEN 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
LAPUZ SY v. EUFEMIO S. EUFEMIO 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
G.R. No. L-31429 January 31, 1972 - PEOPLE OF 2013 2014 2015 2016
THE PHIL. v. ROSCOE DABAN Y GANZON

G.R. No. L-33471 January 31, 1972 -

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. COURT OF TAX
APPEALS
Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

Copyright © 1998 - 2018 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1972januarydecisions.php?id=14 Page 3 of 3