Asias Emerging Dragon v DOTC and MIAA, GR 169914

Republic v CA and Cong. Baterina., GR 174166

Civ Pro Intervention
Corpo Topic Power to enter into a management Contract Section 44
Facts from the same case:
Some time in 1993, six business leaders consisting of John Gokongwei, Andrew Gotianun,
Henry Sy, Sr., Lucio Tan, George Ty and Alfonso Yuchengco met with then President Fidel V.
Ramos to explore the possibility of investing in the construction and operation of a new
international airport terminal. To signify their commitment to pursue the project, they
formed the Asia's Emerging Dragon Corp. (AEDC) which was registered with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) on September 15, 1993.

Facts:
The facts of the two cases are intertwined, both involves the controversies surrounding
the NAIA Airport III (NAIA3) project.The facts from a case named Agan
v. PIATCO serves as a background. In 1993, six business leaders John Gokongwei,
Henry Sy, Sr., Lucio Tan, George Ty, and Alfonso Yuchengco met with then
president FVR for a possibility of investing the construction of a new airport terminal.
They formed the company Asias Emerging Dragon Corp. (AEDC) to pursue this goal.
AEDC then gave an unsolicited proposal to the Govt through the DOTC/MIAA for the
development of NAIA3 under the Build-Operate-Transfer Law (BOT). Afterwards, DOTC
created its Pre-qualification Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) to implement the
NAIA3project as the overseer for biddings. Afterwards, then DOTC Secretary
Garcia endorsed the proposal of AEDC to National Economic and Development
Authority (NEDA), whose technical committee eventually approved it. Afterwards,
AEDC and DOTC signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which essentially
awards to AEDC the NAIA3 project, with provisions that AEDC must have a soft opening
in two years. Then, DOTC published in newspapers invitation for competitive
comparative proposals on AEDCs unsolicited proposal, in accordance with a law that
governs unsolicited proposals. Essentially, it required interested bidders to
submit 3 separate sealed envelopes: first on pre-qualification documents, second
on technical proposals, and lastly on the financial proposal. Paircargo Consortium (which
eventually changed name to PIATCO, a consortium composed of Peoples Air Cargo and
Warehousing, Inc., Phil. Air and Ground Services, and Security Bank Corp.) submitted
their competitive proposal to PBAC. The envelopes will be opened over a
period of time, each one opened only if the previous envelope would qualify. AEDC
would then oppose each instance the sealed envelopes would be opened, citing
primarily PIATCOs dubious financial capabilities to undergo with the project. Eventually,
PBAC found PIATCOs proposal to be more favourable to the government and required

AEDC to match its proposal. Instead, AEDC protested the undue preference given to
PIATCO. Subsequently, after a series of passes before the NEDA Investment Committee,
DOTC issued a notice of award to PIATCO, and had signed a concession agreement.
AEDC then filed with the RTC a petition for Declaration of nullity of the
proceedings (the DOTC/NEDA/PBAC approval proceedings)
This is the Agan v. PIATCO case) against DOTC, and PBAC. It was in this case
that Cong. Baterina in GR 174166 filed a motion for Intervention and
petition-in-intervention, along with other group and
MIAA employees who allege that they stand the risk of unemployment upon the
implementation of the agreements.
a. RTC in this case granted the intervention of Baterina and MIAA. For Baterina,
they were granted standing in view of serious legal questions involved and their
impact to public interest
b. RTC in this case ruled that the concession agreements were null and void. MRs
of PIATCO denied with finality.
c. Other issues are not relevant to our topic
Then, there is another case, Republic v. Gingoyon, which dealt with the
expropriation
of
NAIA3 because it
remained in
the
possession of PIATCO after the decision in Agan. In this case, the Govt
sought to take control of the facilities and deposited 3B+ (through MIAA) in
Land Bank represent ting NAIA3s assessed value. Govt prayed for a writ of
possession over NAIA3 Afterwards in Gingoyon, RTC gave two orders, first being
the Order that it will implement the writ of possession only after the payment of 3B+ as
just compensation (expropriation), second as
the next order partially granting Govt MR on the first Order. But still unsatisfied, the
Govt filed another MR for partial reconsideration of the second order. It was
during this reconsideration of the second order that Baterina and others also
sought to intervene.
(in sum, Baterina intervened in two instances) Baterina wanted to intervene in this
expropriation proceeding by asserting his legal interest by virtue of being a
legislator, taxpayer, and concerned citizen. They were saying that the
government need not pay PIATCO because the agreements were deemed null and void.
RTC in Gingoyon denied Baterina (and others) Intervention with finality.
Afterwards, it directed MIAA to immediately release to PIATCO the proferred value of
3B+. It was here that AEDC filed a motion for leave to admit attached answerin-intervention, asserting that they should be given preference over NAIA3
because of the MOU, and also its right as the projects original proponent.
Issue: W/N Baterina and AEDC may intervene
Held: No to both.
Ratio:

For Baterina, they did not meet the requisite legal interest for a party-in-intervention
and they could not be deemed as indispensable parties in the cases they
intervened in because:
1. The amount directed by the court to be paid by the Govt to PIATCO came
from the money deposited by MIAA (3B+), which the court deemed as a
public corporation enjoying autonomy whose budgets need not be approved
by the Congress.
2. The interests of Baterina may be duly litigated in a separate proceeding.
For AEDC,
1. One of the main issues resolved by the court is the issue of unsolicited proposals.
Applying several laws, the court(s) ruled that AEDC has no right to intervene as
the existing laws essentially say that the rights of an entity who gave an
unsolicited proposal would be defeated if the project was not awarded to them in
a proper bidding. Hence, given that AEDC was defeated by PIATCO in the bidding
with PBAC, it didnt have a right over NAIA3
2.Even if there is a MOU executed between them and DOTC, the lower courts
invalidated(?) that MOU.
3. Hence, AEDC has no legal right as an intervenor in the expropriation
case