Restrained

When Joseph Estrada assumed the presidency in 1998, among the promises he made was to rid the judiciary of “hoodlums in robes.”

Everybody knew what he was talking about. The plague of corruption did not spare our judicial system. Rulings could be bought. One could casually shop around for temporary restraining orders (TROs) to stall proceedings and delay projects. All the delays took a toll on the country’s economic development.

Many initiatives have been undertaken to restrict the availability of TROs – especially for those merely using this remedy as a dilatory tactic. The Build-Operate-Transfer Law, for instance, prohibits the use of TROs intended to delay projects or reduce their viability.

The matter of TROs was prominent once more in the case filed by the Metro Clark sanitary waste disposal business against the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA). Metro Clark invoked the Investor’s Lease Act to force BCDA to extend its operations after its original 25-year lease expired. The BCDA, for its part, underscored the fact that there was nothing in the original contract that guarantees Metro Clark an extension beyond its original lease period.

This case is of major interest in Central Luzon where over a hundred municipalities and corporations use the Metro Clark landfill to dump their waste. Transfer to an alternative dumpsite will be costlier for the LGUs. Furthermore, although Metro Clark was aware its contract with BCDA was about to end, the company continued negotiating new service contracts with local governments using their facility.

BCDA has plans for the area now used by the Metro Clark landfill. Among these plans are modern tourism facilities attracting huge investments in our economy. Reusing the area for activities with greater economic return will certainly be beneficial for our economic growth.

Metro Clark’s contract has expired. The projects for reuse of the land, negotiated by the BCDA, are ready to be implemented. The only possible cause for delay are the lawsuits filed by Metro Clark against the government agency. Since there is no legal basis in the original contract to support Metro Clark’s claims, the lawsuits are seen as mere nuisance.

Metro Clark filed for temporary restraining orders in both the Angeles City RTC and the Capas RTC. The filings seek to delay BCDA’s assumption of its ownership rights over the property now used as a landfill.

The Angeles City RTC swiftly identified the flaws in the case filed by Metro Clark. It saw that the garbage dump operator was forum shopping, having filed the same case in two courts. In addition, the Angeles City court observed that Metro Clark failed to identify a cause of action underpinning its claims.

In a clear and resounding ruling, the Angeles City RTC threw out Metro Clark’s filings. The BCDA argued there should be no dispute regarding the legal document governing Metro Clark’s occupation of a 100-hectare landfill. It is, stated simply, a contract with an expiration date – a fundamental element of lessor-lessee agreements.  

Furthermore, Metro Clark’s claim of an unwritten provision for a 50-year extension is deceptive. It merits potential charges of perjury if presented as testimony or false evidence in court.

Any court or judge should plainly recognize the absence of any legal authority for Metro Clark to cling to the dumpsite without a valid contract. The lessor is not legally obligated to renew the agreement should it choose a different utilization for its property.

Any court or judge should acknowledge it has no jurisdiction over contractual matters. Otherwise a dangerous precedent could be set: that of stripping the legal authority responsible for property utilization.

Metro Clark is clearly defying authority on this matter. The company’s plea for a TRO against multibillion infrastructure projects appeases private interests at the expense of the larger public good.

The company’s continued defiance of authority is without any contractual basis. It is not only delaying the modernization of the land in question. It is also delaying the construction of alternative sanitary landfills by offering some hope of an extended lease for its operation.

But, while the Angeles City RTC decisively threw out the Metro Clark petition, the Capas RTC went ahead and issued a TRO in favor the garbage company.

By doing so, the Capas judge clearly disregarded Republic Act 8975. This Act prohibits any court, except the Supreme Court, from issuing TROs or injunctions meant to impede government’s progress on national projects. The prohibition extends to terminating or rescinding contracts.

The Capas judge simply ignores the fact that the complainant lacks a clear and legal right. This renders improper the issuance of injunctive relief.

Metro Clark knew for years that the BCDA intended to reuse the property occupied by the landfill they operate. They knew the government agency will not be convinced to forego billions in investment and the postponement of their modernization plans for New Clark City. Yet they did not prepare to wind down their operations in time for the expiration of the lease contract.

Instead, Metro Clark spread unfounded alarm for the consequences of the closure of their business. They inflated the possibility their contract may be extended, discouraging investments in alternative landfills. They did this to tie BCDA’s hands and delay implementation of the agency’s modernization plans.

The Capas RTC’s issuance of a TRO in favor of a company openly defying government does not seem capable of withstanding more rigorous legal scrutiny.