G.R. No. L-28597 - FEBRUARY 1968 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-28597February 29, 1968 National Waterworks & Sewerage Authority vs. Andres Reyes, et al. G.R. No. L-24064February 29, 1968 Rizal Surety & Insurance, Co. vs. Macondray & Co., Inc. G.R. No. L-23335February 29, 1968 Rosita C. De La Cruz, et al. vs. Court of Tax Appeals et al. G.R. No. L-23334 and L-23451February 29, 1968 Juana T. De La Cruz vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-22390February 29, 1968 In Re: Tan Khe Shing. Tan Khe Shing vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-20990February 29, 1968 Philippine National Bank vs. Agustin Pariña G.R. No. L-28490February 28, 1968 Domacao Alonto, et al. vs. Commission on Elections, et al. G.R. No. L-27360February 28, 1968 Ricardo G. Papa, et al. vs. Remedios Mago, et al. G.R. No. L-24284February 28, 1968 Jaime Lim, et al. vs. Local Registrar of Manila, et al. G.R. No. L-28651February 27, 1968 Domestic Insurance Company of the Philippines vs. American Pioneer Line, et al. G.R. No. L-25491February 27, 1968 Bienvenido F. Reyes vs. Romeo G. Abeleda, et al. G.R. No. L-25176February 27, 1968 People of the Philippines vs. Agapito Yap, Jr. G.R. No. L-23385February 27, 1968 In Re: Santiago Yap Santiago Yap vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-22476February 27, 1968 People of the Philippines vs. Senando Panganiban, et al. G.R. No. L-21624February 27, 1968 Segundo Santos vs. Secretary Of Labor, et al. G.R. No. L-20081February 27, 1968 Melquiades Raagas, et al. vs. Octavio Traya, et al. G.R. No. L-19347February 27, 1968 People of the Philippines vs. Miguel Gamao, et al. G.R. No. L-19200February 27, 1968 Emilio Sy vs. Manuel Dalman, et al. G.R. No. L-25383February 26, 1968 Commissioner Of Immigration vs. Francisco Arca, et al. G.R. No. L-25335February 26, 1968 Sun Bros. Appliances, Inc. vs. Trinity Luncheonette & Social Club Corp., et al. G.R. No. L-25152February 26, 1968 Provincial Sheriff of Pampanga, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-25035February 26, 1968 Edwarda S. vda. de Genuino vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-24864February 26, 1968 Fortunato F. Halili vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-24619February 26, 1968 Caltex (Philippines), Inc. vs. Acting Commissioner of Customs G.R. No. L-24362February 26, 1968 Tacloban Electric & Ice Plants Co., Inc. vs. Enrique Medina, et al. G.R. No. L-24241February 26, 1968 Hatib Abbain vs. Tongham Chua, et al. G.R. No. L-23960 and L-23961 February 26, 1968 Diwa ng Pagkakaisa-Paflu vs. Filtex International Corp., et al. G.R. No. L-23803February 26, 1968 C. F. Sharp & Company, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs G.R. No. L-23687February 26, 1968 Go Lea Chu, Et Al. vs. Corazon Gonzales, et al. G.R. No. L-23425February 26, 1968 Commissioner Of Customs, et al. vs. Miguel Fortich Celdran, et al. G.R. No. L-21853February 26, 1968 Municipality Of Opon (Now Lapu-Lapu City), et al. vs. Caltex (Philippines) Inc. G.R. No. L-23793February 23, 1968 Ormoc Sugarcane Planters Association, Inc. vs. Municipal Board of Ormoc City G.R. No. L-22579February 23, 1968 Rolando Landicho vs. Lorenzo Relova, et al. G.R. No. L-26767 February 22, 1968 Ang Tiong vs. Lorenzo Ting G.R. No. L-25529 February 22, 1968 Benjamin Panganiban, et al. vs. Araceli vda. de Sta. Maria, et al. G.R. No. L-24546February 22, 1968 People of the Philippines vs. Isaias Macalisang G.R. No. L-24364February 22, 1968 Bienvenido Medrano vs. Filemon Mendoza, et al. G.R. No. L-24225February 22, 1968 Manuel Cudiamat, et al. vs. Guillermo E. Torres G.R. No. L-24223February 22, 1968 Cornelio Aguila, et al. vs. J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-24146February 22, 1968 Miguel Mabilin, et al. vs. Eusebio S. Millar G.R. No. L-24033February 22, 1968 Phoenix Assurance Co., Ltd. vs. United States Lines G.R. No. L-23859February 22, 1968 Consolidated Textile Mills, Inc. vs. Reparations Commission et al. G.R. No. L-23539February 22, 1968 People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Dalton G.R. No. L-28596February 21, 1968 People of the Philippines vs. Santiago Tilos G.R. No. L-28517February 21, 1968 Amelito R. Mutuc, et al. vs. Commission on Elections, et al. G.R. No. L-23595February 20, 1968 In Re: Antonio Ang Gui, et al. Virginia Basas vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-20722February 20, 1968 People of the Philippines vs. Teotimo Alegarme, et al. G.R. No. L-26934February 19, 1968 Wise & Company, Inc. vs. Republic of the Philippines ,et al. A.M. No. 106February 17, 1968 Ireneo A. Mercado vs. Enrique Medina G.R. No. L-28519February 17, 1968 Ricardo Parulan vs. Director of Prisons G.R. No. L-28170 and L-28200 February 17, 1968 Carmen Lm Pardo de Tavera vs. Demetrio B. Encarnacion, et al. G.R. No. L-24910February 17, 1968 Caltex (Philippines), Inc. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. G.R. No. L-24529February 17, 1968 Eduardo Jimenez vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. L-24289February 17, 1968 Central Taxicab Corp. vs. Public Service Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-23882February 17 1968 M. D. Transit & Taxi Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-23861February 17 1968 Emiliana Cruz vs. Ernesto Oppen Inc.,et al. G.R. No. L-23794February 17, 1968 Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. vs. Treasurer of Ormoc City, et al. G.R. No. L-22138February 17, 1968 Ang Ching Gi vs. Delgado Brothers., Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-20411February 17, 1968 Bartolome E. San Diego vs. Salvador R. Villagracia, et al. G.R. No. L-19227February 17, 1968 Diosdado Yuliongsiu vs. Philippine National Bank (Cebu Branch) A.M. No. 381February 10, 1968 Emilio Capulong, et al. vs. Manuel G. Aliño G.R. No. L-28455February 10, 1968 Pantaleon Pacis vs. Commission on Elections, et al. G.R. No. L-25314 February 10, 1968 Municipality of Tacurong vs. Rosario Abragan, et al. G.R. No. L-24950February 10, 1968 In Re: Jao King Yog. Jao King Yog vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-24319February 10, 1968 London Assurance vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. L-24147February 10, 1968 Federico R. Castro, et al. vs. Matilde Para-On, et al. G.R. No. L-23433February 10, 1968 Gloria G. Jocson vs. Ricardo R. Robles G.R. No. L-23342February 10, 1968 Macario Alquiza, et al. vs. Placido Alquiza, et al. G.R. No. L-22944 February 10, 1968 People of the Philippines vs. Claudia San Juan, et al. G.R. No. L-22067February 10, 1968 Laguna Tayabas Bus Co., Inc. vs. Jose Sotomayor The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. National Waterworks & Sewerage Authority vs. Andres Reyes, et al. Rizal Surety & Insurance, Co. vs. Macondray & Co., Inc. Rosita C. De La Cruz, et al. vs. Court of Tax Appeals et al. Juana T. De La Cruz vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al. In Re: Tan Khe Shing. Tan Khe Shing vs. Republic of the Philippines Philippine National Bank vs. Agustin Pariña Domacao Alonto, et al. vs. Commission on Elections, et al. Ricardo G. Papa, et al. vs. Remedios Mago, et al. Jaime Lim, et al. vs. Local Registrar of Manila, et al. Domestic Insurance Company of the Philippines vs. American Pioneer Line, et al. Bienvenido F. Reyes vs. Romeo G. Abeleda, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Agapito Yap, Jr. In Re: Santiago Yap Santiago Yap vs. Republic of the Philippines People of the Philippines vs. Senando Panganiban, et al. Segundo Santos vs. Secretary Of Labor, et al. Melquiades Raagas, et al. vs. Octavio Traya, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Miguel Gamao, et al. Emilio Sy vs. Manuel Dalman, et al. Commissioner Of Immigration vs. Francisco Arca, et al. Sun Bros. Appliances, Inc. vs. Trinity Luncheonette & Social Club Corp., et al. Provincial Sheriff of Pampanga, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Edwarda S. vda. de Genuino vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al. Fortunato F. Halili vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Caltex (Philippines), Inc. vs. Acting Commissioner of Customs Tacloban Electric & Ice Plants Co., Inc. vs. Enrique Medina, et al. Hatib Abbain vs. Tongham Chua, et al. Diwa ng Pagkakaisa-Paflu vs. Filtex International Corp., et al. C. F. Sharp & Company, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs Go Lea Chu, Et Al. vs. Corazon Gonzales, et al. Commissioner Of Customs, et al. vs. Miguel Fortich Celdran, et al. Municipality Of Opon (Now Lapu-Lapu City), et al. vs. Caltex (Philippines) Inc. Ormoc Sugarcane Planters Association, Inc. vs. Municipal Board of Ormoc City Rolando Landicho vs. Lorenzo Relova, et al. Ang Tiong vs. Lorenzo Ting Benjamin Panganiban, et al. vs. Araceli vda. de Sta. Maria, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Isaias Macalisang Bienvenido Medrano vs. Filemon Mendoza, et al. Manuel Cudiamat, et al. vs. Guillermo E. Torres Cornelio Aguila, et al. vs. J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc., et al. Miguel Mabilin, et al. vs. Eusebio S. Millar Phoenix Assurance Co., Ltd. vs. United States Lines Consolidated Textile Mills, Inc. vs. Reparations Commission et al. People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Dalton People of the Philippines vs. Santiago Tilos Amelito R. Mutuc, et al. vs. Commission on Elections, et al. In Re: Antonio Ang Gui, et al. Virginia Basas vs. Republic of the Philippines People of the Philippines vs. Teotimo Alegarme, et al. Wise & Company, Inc. vs. Republic of the Philippines ,et al. Ireneo A. Mercado vs. Enrique Medina Ricardo Parulan vs. Director of Prisons Carmen Lm Pardo de Tavera vs. Demetrio B. Encarnacion, et al. Caltex (Philippines), Inc. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. Eduardo Jimenez vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. Central Taxicab Corp. vs. Public Service Commission, et al. M. D. Transit & Taxi Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Emiliana Cruz vs. Ernesto Oppen Inc.,et al. Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. vs. Treasurer of Ormoc City, et al. Ang Ching Gi vs. Delgado Brothers., Inc., et al. Bartolome E. San Diego vs. Salvador R. Villagracia, et al. Diosdado Yuliongsiu vs. Philippine National Bank (Cebu Branch) Emilio Capulong, et al. vs. Manuel G. Aliño Pantaleon Pacis vs. Commission on Elections, et al. Municipality of Tacurong vs. Rosario Abragan, et al. In Re: Jao King Yog. Jao King Yog vs. Republic of the Philippines London Assurance vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. Federico R. Castro, et al. vs. Matilde Para-On, et al. Gloria G. Jocson vs. Ricardo R. Robles Macario Alquiza, et al. vs. Placido Alquiza, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Claudia San Juan, et al. Laguna Tayabas Bus Co., Inc. vs. Jose Sotomayor The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-28597             February 29, 1968

NATIONAL WATERWORKS & SEWERAGE AUTHORITY,petitioner,
vs.
HON. ANDRES REYES, Presiding Judge of Branch VI, CFI, Rizal; and
C & C COMMERCIAL CORPORATION,respondents.

The Government Corporate Counsel for petitioner.
Luis Lozano and Constante A. Ancheta for respondents.

ANGELES,J.:

          An original action forcertiorariand prohibition filed by the National Waterworks & Sewerage Authority, hereinafter referred to as the NAWASA, against the Honorable Andres Reyes, presiding judge of Branch VI, Court of First Instance of Rizal and the C & C Commercial Corporation, seeking to set aside a preliminary injunction issued by the said court dated January 18, 1968, in Civil Case No. 10523, which restrained herein petitioner from proceeding with the calling of bids for the supply of steel pipes intended for the improvement of its waterworks projects in the City of Manila and its suburbs. Herein petitioner assails the legality of the said restraining order on several grounds: lack of jurisdiction of the courta quoto issue the injunctive writ aforesaid against herein petitioner when, admittedly, the offices or place of business of petitioner corporation and the bidding enjoined are outside its territorial jurisdiction; the complaint in the lower court fails to state a cause of action; and the plaintiff corporation is disqualified to participate in public biddings called for by the NAWASA under the provisions of Administrative Order No. 66, dated June 27, 1967.

          The background facts of the controversy are as follows:

          On December 12, 1967, the NAWASA, caused to be published an advertisement calling for bids for the supply ofsteel pipesof 30-inch and 24-inch diameters, intended for the Interim Program of Development of the Distribution System of the Manila and Suburbs Waterworks. Believing that the said call for bids was prejudicial to its interest, in the circumstance that the NAWASA had specifically and exclusively called for the supply of steel pipes only excluding therefrom the asbestos cement pressure pipes it manufactures, the C & C Commercial Corporation filed a complaint against the NAWASA in the court below, alleging that it is a qualified bidder in any bidding of the Government; that its locally manufactured asbestos cement pipes are far less expensive and cheaper than any other type, class or kind of pipe locally manufactured; are available, proven and tested to be durable and usable and serve as equally well as steel pipes in waterworks distribution systems; that in the call for bids of the NAWASA in its advertisement of December 12, 1967, asbestos cement pressure pipes had been excluded in violation of Republic Act 912; and that said deliberate discrimination against its products would cause great prejudice to public interest and would cause irreparable damage to both plaintiff and the Government, if not enjoined by the court from the act complained of. It concluded with a prayer that a writ of preliminary injunction or restraining order be issued immediatelyex-parte, upon plaintiff's filing a sufficient bond, enjoining the NAWASA from opening the bids submitted under the advertisement above-mentioned, and after trial, that judgment be rendered: (1) ordering the NAWASA permanently to desist from proceeding with the conduct of the bidding complained of: (2) ordering the NAWASA to call and advertise another bidding to include plaintiff's products; and (3) ordering the NAWASA to pay unto the plaintiff actual damages, attorney's fees, and the costs of the suit.

          It appears that the NAWASA, as well as the International Pipe Industries Corporation which had been granted leave to intervene in the case, opposed the application for preliminary injunction, contending, that the complaint states no cause of action by reason of failure on the part of the plaintiff to allege or show that it has complied with the requirements of Republic Act 912, i.e., by showing that it has secured a certification from the Director of Public Works as to the "availability, practicability, usability and durability" of its products; that plaintiff is a disqualified bidder in any Government project under the provisions of Administrative Order No. 66 dated June 26, 1967, by reason of the fact that plaintiff corporation and its President have tremendous tax liabilities with the Government; that plaintiff's plant is not capable of producing asbestos cement pipes in the sizes called for in the bids, the largest size of pipes it is actually producing being up to 12 inches in diameter only; that it has actually ceased to be a manufacturer of said products, having leased its plant, together with all the machineries and the land whereon the plant is located, in favor of D. B. Canicosa & Sons for a period of three (3) years starting November 20, 1967; that the court has no jurisdiction to issue the writ prayed for because the NAWASA and the holding of the bidding sought to be enjoined are outside its territorial jurisdiction; that the issuance of the injunction would cause prejudice to public interest for the delay in the completion of the projects wherein the pipes called for in the bid are intended would cause public inconvenience which are natural results of water shortage; and that plaintiff's damage is reparable while that of the NAWASA is irreparable.

          The application for the writ of preliminary injunction was set for hearing by the trial court on January 15, 1967. The same was set for hearing on the following day where the parties were called in chambers and there discussion ensued relative to the case. Thereafter, under date of January 18, 1967, the respondent judge issued the order complained of which, as earlier stated, ordered the NAWASA to desist from proceeding with the bidding in question.

          Acting upon the petition, this Court resolved to require the herein respondents to file their answer not later than February 12, 1968. Hearing on the merits was set on February 14, on which date the case was argued by the respective counsels for the petitioner and the respondents. Petitioner was given two (2) days within which to submit a copy of the contract of lease over the asbestos cement pressure pipe plant or factory of the respondents C & C Commercial Corporation which the former claims the latter had executed in favor of D. B. Canicosa & Sons, to support herein petitioner's contention that the said respondent corporation had ceased to be a manufacturer of asbestos cement pressure pipes; and the C & C Commercial Corporation was likewise given two (2) days within which to submit the necessary certification from the Bureau of Public Works to sustain its claim that it has a right to the preference granted to locally manufactured products under the Flag Laws. It appears that the NAWASA has complied with the order of the Court by submitting copies of the alleged contract of lease of C & C Commercial Corporation's factory for a term of three (3) years, but the said respondent up to now has not filed the certification from the Bureau of Public Works required of it.

          An examination of the pleadings revealed that the issues raised in the instant petition are substantially the very same points relied upon by herein petitioner in the lower court in support of its opposition to the issuance of the preliminary injunction in question. Admittedly the NAWASA has its offices in Manila, and the bidding sought to be enjoined is to be conducted in that city. Hence, the issue then that needs to he resolved is: May a court of first instance issue a writ of preliminary injunction which will be enforced outside the territorial boundaries of said court? This was the very same question that was brought before Us in a very recent case,¹and We answered the question in the negative, thus:

          Upon the facts of this case, and in the light of authority above-quoted, there can be no doubt that the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the respondent judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal which purports to restrain acts of herein petitioner outside of the territorial limits of its province or district is null and void, for want of jurisdiction.

          Herein private respondent claims that the call for bids of the NAWASA is in violation of Republic, Act 912 which grants preferential right to locally manufactured products. An examination of the complaint filed in the lower court, however, would show that it does not contain any allegation that it possesses the necessary certification as to the "availability, practicability, usability and durability" of the asbestos cement pressure pipes manufactured by it from the director of Public Works pursuant to the requirement of said Act. Now was the said certification produced before Us in this proceeding as required in the resolution of this Court of February 14, 1968. It is safe to conclude under the circumstances that it does not have such certification. This is fatal to herein private respondent's because of action in the lower court, and sustains the claim of herein petitioner that the C & C Commercial Corporation is not entitled to the benefits of Republic Act 912. We have clearly passed upon this point in a former case²involving the same parties herein, and our pronouncement should apply with equal force here.

          Furthermore, the private respondent is disqualified to participate in public biddings by virtue of Administrative Order No. 66 issued by the President of the Philippines on June 26, 1967:

          it appearing that as alleged in the petition, which is not traversed, the private respondent has tremendous tax liabilities with the government and for which several cases have been filed in court against it.

          Private respondent, however, assails the constitutionality of said Administrative Order No. 66 without giving any reason, and considering the well-settled rule that the constitutionality of a law or executive order may not be collaterally attacked, and they shall be deemed valid unless declared null and void by a competent court, the contention deserves no merit.

          FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, the writ is granted, and the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the respondent judge, dated June 19, 1968, is set aside. Costs against private respondent C & C Commercial Corporation.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro and Fernando, JJ., concur.1äwphï1.ñët

Footnotes