CA upholds dismissal of MRT bid to stop DOTC from acquiring new trains

The Court of Appeals (CA) has upheld its July 31, 2014, ruling that dismissed the bid of Metro Rail Transit Corp. (MRTC) and MRT Holdings II to stop the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) from acquiring additional light rail vehicles (LRV) for MRT 3 from another supplier.

In its 2014 ruling, the appeals court did not stop the DOTC from awarding the contract for the manufacture and supply of 48 brand-new LRVs to Dalian Locomotive and Rolling Stock of China.

An MRT 3 train car runs on its tracks along Edsa. The Court of Appeals upholds its 2014 ruling that dismissed the bid of the operators of the MRT to stop the DOTC from acquiring new light rail vehicles from another supplier.

The appeals court in its recent ruling said they could not find any reason to reverse their 2014 decision.

“We find no cogent reason to set aside or reverse our earlier ruling denying petitioners’ prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction,” the appeals court 14th division, thru Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, said in a six-page resolution.

Petitioners insisted that if the Chinese firm got the contract, there would be higher risks of train collisions and bigger damage to the MRT 3 system.

But the appeals court said they “find that the arguments raised by petitioners in support of their motion for reconsideration are a mere rehash of the arguments in their allegations in support of their prayer for injunctive relief incorporated in the instant petition for review which had already been thoroughly considered by this court.”

MRTC entered into a build-lease-transfer (BLT) agreement with the DOTC in 1997 to construct and maintain a light rail transit system for Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (Edsa), eventually known as MRT.

It added the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction would dispose of the case on the merits as it would effectively enjoin the procurement of additional LRVs without the benefit of a full-blown proceeding.

“The issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction had the effect of granting the main prayer of the complaint such that there is practically nothing left for the court to try except the plaintiff’s claim for damages,” the appellate court added.

In its petition for the issuance of a TRO and/or a writ of preliminary injunction, the MRT 3 builders said the DOTC undertook the procurement through public bidding of additional LRVs for the said line without its consent or waiver of its right of first refusal in violation of their BLT agreement.

The petitioners claimed its right for capacity expansion of MRT 3 under the BLT is  “clear and unmistakable” and the recent opinion issued by the Department of Justice declaring its right of first refusal to be void was obviously given to justify DOTC’s actions.

They noted the DOTC’s procurement of LRVs from Dalian deviated from the principle of having a single point of responsibility which underlaid the construction, operation and maintenance of MRT 3.

Thus, the petitioners warned that if the new LRVs were allowed to run without the necessary adjustment and upgrade to the system, the riding public would be exposed to high risks of train collisions and loss of lives.