THE Court of Appeals HAS junked the petition of Harbour Centre Terminal Inc. and Harbour Centre Port Terminal Subic Inc. questioning a lower court’s refusal to dismiss the civil case lodged by Subic port operator Amerasia International Terminal Services Inc.
The case stemmed from the civil suit Amerasia filed on April 24, 2024 before the Olongapo City Regional Trial Court questioning the decision of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority to award a deal to develop, operate and manage ports within Subic to Harbour Centre led by businessman Reghis Romero II.
In filing the case, Amerasia argued that the award conflicted with SBMA’s obligations to third parties such as the former.
Amerasia filed the case for specific performance and a right to indemnity for tortious interference.
The petitioners challenged Amerasia’s claim and told Olongapo City Branch 97, which handled the case, to reconsider its decision admitting Amerasia’s evidence.
They also asked the RTC to dismiss Amerasia’s case.
But on December 18, 2024, the RTC denied Harbour Centre’s plea.
It also denied Harbour Centre’s motion for reconsideration on January 6, 2025, prompting the former companies to elevate the case to the CA by filing a petition for certiorari.
But the appellate court threw out the petition, saying it is a “prohibited pleading.”
The CA explained that a petition for certiorari must only be anchored or based on jurisdictional grounds and not on the correctness of the lower court’s appreciation of the admissibility of evidence that Amerasia presented.
“By clear, categorical and unambiguous rule, the Instant Petition is a prohibited pleading,” the CA held, adding that a perusal of Harbour Centre’s petition would show that it is challenging the RTC’s denial of a demurrer to evidence because they disagree with the lower court’s appreciation of the weight and admissibility of Amerasia’s evidence and the factual finding of the court.
“The petitioners clearly raise errors in the RTC’s appreciation of Amerasia’s evidence and the RTC’s factual conclusions for which the writ of certiorari is an improper remedy,” it added.
The appellate court also stressed that Harbour Centre did not allege that the RTC acted whimsically, capriciously, or with patent hostility against them.
“They are clearly raising errors of judgment, though framing them as errors of jurisdiction. This is improper,” the CA further said.
“Even if the RTC was indeed mistaken in its conclusion that Amerasia’s evidence was sufficient to establish a prima facie case for tortious interference, and in effectively requiring the petitioners to meet Amerasia’s evidence with their own, the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy is to proceed with the trial where the petitioners can submit evidence that cast doubt on and overthrow Amerasia’s evidence, if they have them,” it added.
Concurring with the decision were Associate Justices Lorenza Bordios and Mary Josephine Lazaro.
