Gerard M. Castillo Constitutional Law 1 Mantruste Systems, Inc. vs Court of Appeals 179 SCRA 136 Facts: Mantruste Systems, Inc. (MSI) entered into an interim lease agreement dated August 26, 1986
with the Development Bank Bank of the Philippines, the the owner of Bayview Plaza Hotel. The agreement provides that MSI would operate the hotel for a minimum of three months or until such time that the said properties are sold to MSI or other third parties by DBP. During the said period, the President issued Proclamation No. 50 entitled Launching a Program for the Expeditious Disposition or Privatization of certain Government Corporations and/or the (acquired) assets thereof and creating a Committee on Privatization Privatization and the Asset Privatization Trust. The Bayview Hotel has been one of the identified assets for privatization and it was transferred from DBP to APT for disposition. The DBP notified MSI that it was terminating terminating the interim lease agreement. agreement. It has been agreed that 30 days from the signing of the Certification, the lease contract will be considered as terminated; the Bayview Hotel will be made available for inspection at all times by other bidders; and said property will be ready for delivery to any new owners 30 days from signing the Certification. A letter granting an extension of 30 days was sent by APT to MSI. This is to allow the latter to wind up affairs and to facilitate a smooth turn-over of the facilities to its new owners without necessarily interrupting the hotels regular operation. After 15 days, MSI informed APT that since its lease on the hotel properties has been for more than one year now, its lessee status has has taken the character of a long term one. As such MSI as the lessee has acquired certain rights and privileges under under the law and equity. It also contends that it has acquired a priority right to purchase said properties above ot her interested parties. APT, on a reply said that it has not found any stipulation tending to support MSIs claim and since the Pre-Bidding Conference has been conducted, for APT to consider the request of MSI would not be in consonance with law, equity and fair play. The MSI then wrote a letter to APT informing the latter of the alleged legal lien over the hotel which amounts to P10,000,000 P10,000,000 . It also demanded that APT consider consider MSI as very preferred bidder. bidder. MSI also submit its bid to APT for P95,000,000 in cash or P120,000,000 in installment terms. MSI also asked APT to clarify the following: 10 whether APT has a clean title over the property; 2) 2) whether the Trust knew the hotel had back taxes; 3) who should pay the tax arrears; and 4) whether MSIs advances made in behalf of DBP would be treated as part of the bid offer. In the view that MSI has been disqualified from the public bidding, the property was eventually awarded to Makati Agro Trading and La Filipina Uy Gongco Corporation.
MSI filed a petition for preliminary injunction with the lower court. The said court granted the petition but the Court of Appeals nullified the lower courts ruling for being violative to Section 1 of Proclamation No. 50 which provides: No court or administrative agency shall issue any restraining order or injunction against the trust in connection with the acquisition, sale or disposition of assets transferred to it. Nor shall such order or injunction be issued against any purchaser of assets sold by the Trust to prevent such purchaser from taking possession of any assets purchased by him. The CA rejected the lower courts opinion that said proclamation is unconstitutional, rather it upheld that it continues to be operative after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution by virtue of Section 3 Art. XVIII. It also noted that MSI has not been deprived of its property rights since those rights are nonexistent and its only property right was the alleged reimbursable advances made to DBP, which it may sue to collect in a separate action. It further held that the issuance of writ of preliminary injunction by the lower court against APT may not be justified as a valid exercise of judicial power for MSI does not have a legally demandable and enforceable right of retention over the said property. The MSI then filed this petition for certiorari with this Court. Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred in holding that MSIs rights to the property are non-existent except
its right to use the refund of its alleged advances; and in not declaring unconstitutional Section 31 of Proclamation No. 50. Ruling: The Court upheld the ruling of the CA. It affirmed the Court of appeals finding that MSIs claim
to a patent contractual right to retain possession of the Bayview Hotel until all its advances are paid is non-existent; and as the right of retention does not exist, neither does the right to the relief demanded. A mere lessee like MSI is not a builder in good faith, hence the right of retention given to a possessor in good faith pending reimbursement of his advances for necessary repairs and useful improvements on anothers property is not available to a lessee whose possession is not that of an owner. The Court stated that it is a settled rule that lessees are not possessor in good faith because they know that their occupancy of the premises continue only during the life of the lease, hence they cannot recover, as a matter of right, the value of their improvements from the lessor, much less retain the premises until they are reimbursed thereof. The Court also ruled that Section 31 of Proclamation No. 50 does not impair the inherent powers of the courts to settle actual controversies which are legally demandable and enforceable and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. It also noted that the power of the courts over the other branches and instrumentalities of the government is limited only to the determination of whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in the exercise of their authority and in the performance of their assigned tasks.
There can be no
justification on judicial interference in the business of an administrative agency except when it violates a citizens constitutional rights, or commits a grave abuse of discretion, or acts in excess of, or without jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed.
