3Repuhltc of tbe flbilippines

$>Upreme <!Court
:!Manila

FIRST DIVISION

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a
Resolution dated May 14, 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 211665 (City Government of Pasay, represented by

its Mayor, Antonino G. Calixto v. The Honorable Court ofAppeals,
Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 118, Manila
International Airport Authority, and Manila Electric Company
(Mera/co).

This is an appeal from the November 4, 2013 Decision 1 of the

Court of Appeals (CA), which found no grave abuse of discretion on
the part of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 118 {RTC),
in issuing a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction and denying the
City Government of Pasay' s motion to dissolve the said writ. The
R TC' s orders, in turn, enabled the Manila International Airport
Authority (MIAA) and Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) to
complete the project for the installation of sub-transmission lines that
serve the power requirements of the Ninoy Aquino International
Airport Terminal III (NAIA Terminal Ill).

In 2001, Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc.

(PIATCO), the former operator of NAIA Terminal III, applied for
electric service with MERALCO, a private corporation organized
under Philippine law and engaged in the distribution of electricity to
customers within its franchise area, to address the terminal's power
deficiency. After evaluation, Meralco proposed the construction of a
power substation beside the terminal. With PIATCO' s concurrence,
MERALCO completed the substation the following year. To energize
the substation, MERALCO also recommended the installation of two

- over - seven (7) pages ...

200-B

1Rollo, pp. 29-39; penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario (now a Member of the Court)
with Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang (now also a Member of the Court) and Leoncia
Real-Dimagiba, concurring.
RESOLUTION 2 G.R. No. 211665
May 14, 2021

sub-transmission lines which will require setting up concrete and steel

electrical poles. These poles will traverse some areas along Barangay
183 in Pasay City. 2

In December 2004, MIAA, a government instrumentality

created under Executive Order No. 778, Series of 1982, as amended,
and the agency vested with the power to administer and operate
international airports in Manila, among others, took over the
operations of NAIA Terminal III. For this reason, l\1ERALCO
transferred the service in the name ofMIAA. 3

On September 1, 2009, after l\1ERALCO had secured the

Barangay Working Permit Clearance4 from Barangay 183 of Pasay
City, the City Engineer of the Pasay City Government issued an
excavation permit. This allowed l\1ERALCO to commence
excavations for purposes of putting up the transmission poles.
However, the project was suspended when the City Engineer issued a
Suspension Order5 dated December 3, 2009, after considering the
complaints received from residents of Barangay 183 and finding out
that l\1ERALCO failed to obtain the locational/zonal clearance and
certificate of no objection from the Pasay City Council, as required by
Ordinance No. 4187, Series of2008 (Ordinance 4187).6

Aggrieved by the delay in the full operation of NAIA Terminal

III, MIAA filed a petition for injunction with prayer for the issuance
of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction before the RTC to
compel the City Government of Pasay to lift the suspension order, and
l\1ERALCO to supply the electricity required for the full operation of
NAIA Terminal III. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. R-PSY-
10-03913-CV and raffled to Branch 118 of the court. 7

On July 23, 2010, the RTC issued an Order8 granting MIAA's

application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction. It lifted the suspension order issued by the City Engineer
and directed l\1ERALCO to continue the acts already commenced that
are necessary for the supply of electricity to NAIA Terminal III.9
MIAA posted the injunction bond on July 27, 2010, and the writ of

- over -
200-B

2
Id. at 30-31.
3 Id. at 31.
4
Id. at 789.
5 Id. at 846-A.
6
Id. at 31-32.
7 Id. at 32.
8
Id. at 864-873.
9
Id. at 873.
RESOLUTION 3 G.R. No. 211665
May 14, 2021

preliminary mandatory injunction was issued on the same date.

MERALCO was able to complete the installation of the sub-
transmission lines. 10

On August 6, 2010, the City Government of Pasay filed a

Motion for Dissolution of the Writ of Preliminary Mandatory
Injunction. 11 However, this was denied by the RTC in its September
17, 2010 Order. 12 Consequently, the City Government of Pasay filed a
Petition for Certiorari 13 before the CA, alleging grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the RTC in issuing the writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction in favor of MIAA, and in denying the motion
for the dissolution of the said writ. 14

In its assailed decision, the CA found no grave abuse of

discretion on the part of the RTC, and consequently dismissed the
petition. It held that the RTC had sufficiently determined the propriety
of issuing the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. It also
affirmed the RTC's finding that the City Government of Pasay's act
of suspending the excavation permit was unjustified considering that
MERALCO had complied with all the requirements for its issuance. 15
The City Government of Pasay failed to successfully establish how
the irregularity in the issuance of the excavation permit came about
and MERALCO's participation therein. Hence, the presumption of
regularity in the issuance of the permit persists. 16

Moreover, the CA held as unavailing the Pasay City

Government's insistence on the supposed correct interpretation of
Ordinance 4187 which required the submission of zoning clearance
and certificate of no objection from the Pasay City Council prior to the
issuance of an excavation permit. According to the CA, the basic rule of
statutory construction is that what is not included is excluded. Electrical
poles are clearly not covered by the ordinance. 17 The dispositive
portion of the CA decision states:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition for

certiorari filed by the City Government of Pasay is DISMISSED.

so ORDERED. 18
- over -
200-B

10
Id. at 33.
11
Id. at 878-890.
12 Id. at 34-35; 892-898.
13
Id. at 900-956.
14
Id. at 35.
15
Id. at 36-3 7.
16
Id. at 37-38.
17
Id. at 38.
18
Id. at 39.
RESOLUTION 4 G.R. No. 211665
May 14, 2021

Feeling aggrieved, the City Government of Pasay filed the

instant petition, alleging reversible error committed by the CA in not
finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the R TC in issuing the
writ of preliminary mandatory injunction and denying the motion for
the dissolution of the writ. 19

The petition is unmeritorious, and consequently must be denied.

The petition is anchored on the supposed "improperly and

illegally issued excavation permit."20 According to the City
Government of Pasay, MERALCO had failed to obtain a certificate of
no objection from the City Council and approved zoning clearance
from the Pasay City Planning and Development Office, which are
required by Ordinance 4187. Thus, the excavation permit should not
have been issued by the City Engineer. 21

The R TC was of the view, and the CA agreed, that electrical

poles are not covered by Ordinance 4187 inasmuch as it specifically
mentioned only the following in its first whereas clause: excavation of
the ground for laying of water, gas, sewer xx x and the construction,
repair and maintenance of public drains, sewers, cesspools, tunnels
and similar structures. 22 On the other hand, in maintaining that the
excavations done by MERALCO are covered by the ordinance, the
City Government of Pasay argues that what is controlling is not the
aforementioned whereas clause, but the definition of "excavation" in
the ordinance which is "any form of digging in the street of Pasay
City." 23 The issue in this case thus essentially arose from the differing
interpretations on the coverage of Ordinance 4187. To emphasize,
however, the interpretation of the ordinance is not the office of this
appeal, which is limited in function to the resolution of the lone issue
of whether the CA erred in finding no grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the RTC.

We hold that the CA was not in error.

Granting, for the sake of argument, that the RTC erred in its
interpretation of Ordinance 4187, this does not by itself warrant a
finding of grave abuse of discretion on its part. There must be a
showing of clear abuse of authority on the part of the RTC that is so

- over -
200-B

19
Id. at 12.
20
Id. at 14.
21 Id.
22
Id. at 38; 47.
23 Id. at I 8.
RESOLUTION 5 G.R. No. 211665
May 14, 2021

severe as to warrant the corrective action of the appellate court. In G. V.

Florida Transport, Inc. v. Tiara Commercial Corporation24 We held:

Grave abuse of discretion has a precise meaning in

remedial law. It is not mere abuse of discretion but must be grave
"as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic
manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be so
patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty
or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in
contemplation of law." In more concrete terms, not every error
committed by a tribunal amounts to grave abuse of discretion. A
misappreciation of the facts or a misapplication of the law
does not, by itself, warrant the filing of a special civil action
for certiorari. There must be a clear abuse of the authority
vested in a tribunal. This abuse must be so serious and so
grave that it warrants the interference of the court to nullify
or modify the challenged action and to undo the damage
done.25 (emphasis supplied)

The evidence adduced by the City Government of Pasay falls

short of the quantum required to establish grave abuse of discretion on
the part of the RTC.

Moreover, if indeed MERALCO's excavation works are covered

by Ordinance 4187, and the excavation permit was erroneously issued
for MERALCO's failure to comply with some requirements of the
ordinance, the remedy of the City Government of Pasay is not the
suspension of the excavation permit, but the remedy provided in the
ordinance itself, to wit:

Section 7. PENALTY CLAUSE. -Any person, individual

and entity ignoring the above requirements shall be imprisoned
for One (1) Year and [imposed] a fine of Ten Thousand
(Phpl0,000.00) Pesos. Moreover, a government official or
employee who issued permits, certificate in violation of this
ordinance shall be subjected to administrative suspension of thirty
(30) days without pay and without prejudice to any criminal
[sanctions] thereof. 26

In view of the above considerations, We agree with the CA that

the challenged R TC orders were not tainted with grave abuse of
discretion.

Significantly, the pettt10n must not only fail on substantive

grounds, but also on the procedural front.

- over -
200-B

24 820 Phil. 235 (2017).

25 Id. at 247.
26
Rollo, p. 48.
 RESOLUTION 6 G.R. No. 211665
May 14, 2021

At the time the CA promulgated its assailed decision, the writ

of preliminary mandatory injunction had been implemented, and
MERALCO had already completed the installation of the sub-
transmission lines.27 In other words, the case has become moot. Even
if the Court finds basis to rule in favor of the City Government of
Pasay, that would have been inconsequential as the act it seeks to
restrain, i.e., the excavations within the areas of its jurisdiction, had
already been accomplished.

A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a

justiciable controversy, so that a declaration on the issue would be ofno
practical use or value. 28 Generally, courts decline jurisdiction over
such case or dismiss it on ground of mootness. 29

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated

November 4, 2013 issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP.
No. 116993 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED." Lopez, J., J., design,ated Additional Member

per Rafjle dated May 12, 2021 vice Carandang, J.

By authority of the Court:

NA
Divisi Clerk of Cou~

by:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULO

Deputy Division Clerk of Court
200-B

- over -

27
Id. at 33; 742-743.
28 Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Hon. Tuazon, Jr., 469 Phil. 79, 85-86 (2004).
29 Prof David v. Pres. Macapagal-Arroyo, 522 Phil. 705, 754 (2006).
RESOLUTION 7 G.R. No. 211665
May 14, 2021

Atty. Severo C. Madrona, Jr. Court of Appeals (x)

Counsel for Petitioner Manila
Office of the City Legal Officer (CA-G.R. SP No. 116993)
Room 208, Pasay City Hall
F.B. Harrison Street, 1300 Pasay City OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT
CORPORATE COUNSEL
Counsel for Respondent MIAA
3 rd Floor, MWSS Building
Katipunan A venue, 1105 Quezon City

ANGARA ABELLO CONCEPCION

REGALA AND CRUZ
Counsel for Respondent MERALCO
22 nd Floor, ACCRALAW Tower
Second Avenue cor. 30th St., Crescent
Park West, Bonifacio Global City
1634 Taguig City

The Hon. Presiding Judge

Regional Trial Court, Branch 118
13 00 Pasay City
(Civil Case No. R-PSY-10-03913-CV)

Public Information Office (x)

Library Services (x)
Supreme Court
(For uploading pursuant to A.M.
No. 12-7-1-SC)

Philippine Judicial Academy (x)

Supreme Court

Judgment Division (x)

Supreme Court

200-B

UR