Firm vs DOTC deal doubts if Chinese supplier fits MRT

RUSH-HOUR crowds gather on the Edsa sidewalk not to wait for buses or taxis but to form long lines leading to a station of the MRT, which has long been plagued by a shortage of trains. KIMBERLY DE LA CRUZ

A company that had gone to court to question the government deal procuring new trains from a Chinese firm claimed that this chosen supplier “does not have the experience doing light rail vehicles” or LRVs that suit the Metro Rail Transit (MRT) line on Edsa.

Metro Rail Transit Corp. (MRTC) made the assertion as a Makati City court on Friday started hearing its petition for a preliminary injunction against the P3.8-billion contract between the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) and CNR Dalian Locomotive for the purchase of 48 LRVs.

‘Right to supply’

In a statement, MRTC lawyer David Narvasa cited reports showing that “CNR’s qualification on metro cars, and not LRVs, is limited to the Chinese market and on light traffic metro systems in the Middle East and in Thailand.” he said.

He said CNR’s Mashad Metro project in Iran was classified as a rapid transit or metro system, while the  Dalian Metro Line 3 in Northern China was classified as an elevated rapid transit system.

In its petition, the MRTC maintained it had the “right to supply” the LRVs under a Build, Lease and Transfer (BLT) agreement forged in November 1991 between its “predecessor-in-law,” the Metro Rail Transit Corp. Ltd. and the DOTC.

Contract violated

“We have the right to supply the MRT trains because that is based on the contract. If the DOTC wants to do it itself, it has to get our consent or ask us to waive our right to supply which they have not done [for the Dalian deal], in violation of our contract,” Nick Villaluz, another lawyer for the petitioner, told reporters on Friday.

Villaluz said MRTC and copetitioner MRT Holdings would present four witnesses in a bid to stop the DOTC-CNR deal, three of whom had already submitted judicial affidavits. Two of the witnesses will simply identify documents.

Among those who had submitted affidavits were MRTC chair Robert Sobrepeña who “identified the BLT agreement (as) the basis for our arbitration” and MRT Holdings spokesperson Rommel Gavieta.

‘Irreparable injury’

Villaluz said the affidavits would expound on the “irreparable injury to the MRT” and “danger to the riding public” if the DOTC, pending arbitration, implements the contract with CNR Dalian.

In the MRTC statement, Narvasa stressed that the company could “exercise its rights and supply trains to the MRT system within a timely manner.”

“This will assure compatibility with the existing system and ensure safety and efficiency for the commuting public,” he added. “This proposal will be made in accordance with terms and conditions of existing agreements between MRTC and DOTC.”

On Jan. 30, a day after receiving the petition, Judge Joselito Villarosa of Makati Regional Trial Court-Branch 66  granted a 20-day temporary order of protection that was also sought by the petitioners and would remain in effect until Feb. 24.

The hearing for the preliminary injunction was reset to Feb. 13 pending the DOTC’s written comment and opposition to Villarosa’s Jan. 30 order. The department is represented by the Office of the Solicitor-General.