SC junks Piatco appeal on case filed by two Japanese contractors

MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court has upheld a 2007 Court of Appeals decision denying the motion to dismiss filed by the Philippine International Air Terminals Company Inc. (Piatco), builder of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal III.

In a 12-page decision dated July 4 but released to the media Friday, the high court third division through Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta said it could not see any reason to reverse the CA decision that affirmed the ruling the Makati City Regional Trial Court.

The Makati Court Branch 143 nixed the motion to dismiss and the motion for production and inspection of documents filed by Piatco.

The case stemmed from the civil case filed by Takenaka Corporation and Asahikosan Corporation of Japan to enforce the decision issued by the London court. The London court in 2005 ruled that the two Japanese corporations are entitled to collect the amounts of $81.27 million, P116.8 million and £65,000 (or roughly $83 million) from Piatco.

“There is no showing of such capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power committed by the trial court,” the high court said.

“In fact, records reveal that both parties were given ample opportunity to be heard…It is an oft-repeated principle that where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of due process.”

“It also appears from the RTC’s Orders and the CA’s decision that any and all evidence and argument advanced by both parties were seriously taken into consideration by said lower courts in arriving at their rulings. Such being the case, there could be no grave abuse of discretion committed by the trial court,” it added.

The two Japanese corporations were hired by Piatco for the construction of the previously mothballed NAIA Terminal 3.

In May this year, the appeals court issued a ruling ordering Piatco to pay Takenaka and Asahikosan based on the London court ruling. The case is subject of a separation appeal pending before the Supreme Court.