The Philippine Ports Authority,  Respondent contended that PPA AO

represented by its General Manager No. 03-2000 was arbitrary for

Juan O Pena being:
Vs * unfair because it is an
Cipres Stevedoring and Arrastre, Inc. afterthought
G.R. No. 145742 July 14, 2005 * prejudicial to the right to renew
the contract vested by virtue of AO
Petitioner – PPA No. 03-90
Respondent – CISAI * repugnant to the Memorandum of
Understanding between the
• A petition for review on certiorari contracting parties
CA decision declaring RTC Order * designed to justify non-
Null and Void and directing the compliance of AO No. 03-90
same to issue a writ of preliminary * a scheme to accommodate
injunction enjoining petitioner political pressures
“from conducting the scheduled * it did not treat all port operators
public bidding of cargo handling alike
operators in the port of Dumaguete  In addition, respondent contends
City” until the termination of the that:
main case. * a substantial number of port
workers face the risk of
FACTS displacement
 Respondent CISAI’s contract for * the possibility of cargo handling
cargo holding in the port of to be awarded to an incompetent
Dumaguete City expired but was and inexperienced participant in
able to extend their operation by the bidding process unlike
virtue of hold-over permits given respondent which had already
by petitioner twice. invested substantial capital in its
 While CISAI was in extended operations in the port of said city.
operation, petitioner, PPA, through  RTC issued TRO ordering PPA to
its GM Pena, issued PPA AO No. 03- cease and desist from further
2000 providing that all contract for conducting the scheduled public
cargo holding services of more bidding and awards.
than 3 years shall be awarded  Petitioner filed urgent motion for
through comparative evaluation. reconsideration with RTC
 Respondent contended in a civil contending that:
action before RTC that petitioner’s * RTC did not have jurisdiction to
action is in derogation of its vested issue the TRO
right based on PPA AO No. 03-90 * CISAI was estopped from seeking
which provides that cargo handling court relief as it had already
contractors with existing or expired expressed its intention to join the
contracts but were able to obtain a bidding process
“satisfactory” performance rating * that the bidding was in the best
were entitled to a renewal of their interest of the public which was
respective contracts with denied
petitioner, as respondent was given Motion denied
a rating of “very satisfactory”.  Petitioner sought reconsideration,
this time arguing that:
 * P.D. No. 1818 prohibits courts
from issuing the injunctive writ
* that the RTC adjudicated before
the parties are heard
* that the order:
> violates the law in
contract making
> beyond the court’s
jurisdiction
> against public interest
> violation of the 1997 rules
on civil procedure
> violates due process
> unsupported by the facts
of the case
RTC set aside the injunctive writ “to give
way to the pronouncement of P.D. No.
1818” as the “function of the PPA is
vested with public interest”
 Respondent filed motion for
reconsideration but was denied
which led the latter to file a petition
for certiorari before the CA
contending that:
o P.D. No. 1818 did not cover
the restraining order and
preliminary injunction
issued by the RTC
o The possibility of cessation
of cargo operations
following CISAI’s second
HOP’s expiration, a situation
not contemplated by P.D.
No. 1818.
o That the pre-qualification
phase of the bidding
procedure was attended by
irregularities
 CA nullified RTC’s latest order,
granting CISAI’s petition
ISSUE
1. WON RTC has the jurisdiction to
issue writs of preliminary
injunctions involving government
infrastructure projects and service
contracts, which include arrastre
and stevedoring contracts.
2. WON CISAI had vested rights to
arrastre and stevedoring
operations at the port of
Dumaguete City.
RULING
1. P.D. No. 1818 amended by R.A.
8975 and reiterated in
Administrative Circular No. 11.2000
leaves to the SC the exclusive
authority to issue TROs,
preliminary injunctions or any of its
subdivision, xxx, to restrain,
prohibit or compel the ff. acts:
Xxx
b. Bidding or awarding of
contract/project of the national
government as defined under Sec.
2 hereof;
For the writ to issue, 2 requisites
must be present, namely, a) the
existence of the right to be
protected, and that the facts
against which the injunction is to
be directed are violative of said
right. It is necessary that one must
show an unquestionable right over
the premises.
2. Respondent was not able to
establish its claimed right over the
renewal of its cargo handling
agreement with the petitioner.
Stevedoring services are imbued
with public interest and subject to
the state’s police power.
Whatever proprietary right that
respondent may have acquired
must necessarily give way to a
valid exercise of police power.
The decision to bid out the cargo
holding serves in the ports around
the country is properly within the
province and discretion of
petitioner.

Contracts are “subject to the

overriding demands, needs, and
interests of the greater number as
the State may determine in the
legitimate exercise of its police
power.

Respondent’s eight-year contract

for cargo handling was already
terminated but its continued
operation was due to a second
hold-over permit granted by
petitioner, which may be revoked
by petitioner at any time.
At the time of the institution of this
suit, respondent no longer
possessed any contact for its
continued operation, therefore no
valid agreement between
respondent and petitioner.

WHEREFORE, petition is granted.

CA decision reversed and set aside.