The Supreme Court has refused to stop the Department of Transportation (DOTr) from
buying 48 new light rail vehicles for the government’s mass transit system from the Metro Rail Transit Corporation Limited (MRTCL).
In its October 14 decision, the SC Third Division junked the plea of the private operators of Metro Rail Transit 3 (MRT3) seeking the issuance of an injunction against the acquisition.
The high court upheld the ruling issued by the Court of Appeals in 2016 which affirmed the 2014 order of the Makati city regional trial court throwing out the petition for the issuance of an injunction lodged by the Metro Rail Transit Corporation (MRTC) and Metro Rail Transit Holdings II, Incorporated (MRTHI) against the DOTr concerning the purchase of the new LRVs worth P3.76 billion for the use of MRT 3.
In its decision, the SC branded as “specious” the arguments of the petitioners that they are entitled to the issuance of injunction because the matter is of extreme urgency and involves a constitutional issue.
The SC also agreed with the CA and the trial court’s decisions that the latter is prohibited from issuing an injunction as the relief being sought by the petitioners “falls within the proscription mandated by Republic Act No. 8975.”
The said law enjoins all courts, except the SC, from issuing any temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or preliminary mandatory injunction against the government, or any of its agencies and officials to restrain or compel the bidding or awarding of a contract or project of the national government to avoid unnecessary increase in construction costs and to allow the public to enjoy soonest the benefits of national government projects.
“It is readily apparent that petitioners seek to retrain, prohibit, or compel the bidding or awarding of the procurement of LRVs for MRT3 in favor of other suppliers. The writ of preliminary injunction that they are seeking, in the guise of a supposed interim measure of protection, squarely falls within the proscription method mandated by RA 8975. Simply put, the RTC is indeed prohibited from issuing the injunction sought by the petitioners,” the SC said.
Likewise, the high court said the petitioners also failed to substantiate their bare allegations that they have suffered grave injustice or irreparable injury involving their constitutional rights because of the DOTr’s decision.
“Neither have petitioners proved that MRTC stands to suffer some grave and irreparable injury. While the Court understands petitioners’ concerns, there is still no basis for the issuance of a WPI because, as explained by the CA, it can be compensable through the award of damages. As the damages alleged by them can be quantified, it cannot be considered as ‘grave and irreparable injury’ as understood in law,” the SC stressed.
