A property developer controlled by the F.F. Cruz construction group has asked the Makati City Regional Trial Court to reverse its 4 August ruling voiding the P34.3 billion joint venture deal of the Gatchalian family’s Waterfront Manila Premier Development Corp. with the Philippine Reclamation Authority and the City of Manila for the reclamation of 318 hectares off Manila Bay.
In its 24-page motion for reconsideration before Makati RTC Branch 139 Presiding Judge Benjamin T. Pozon, the Asian Seas Resources and Construction Development Corp. said the court had erred when it ordered vacated and set aside its 25 April 2022 decision. Asserco stressed that there was no need to implead the Office of the President as it was not an indispensable party.
“The Honorable Court erred when it vacated and set aside the Decision dated 25 April 2022 on the ground that the Office of the President is an indispensable party when the Honorable Court has resolved the same in its order dated 17 February 2022, which became final and binding to the parties,” ASSERCO said.
It added the same court had already ruled that the Office of the President was not an indispensable party in the case when it ruled on a previous joint motion to resolve affirmative defenses made by lawyers from the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel and private respondent Waterfront Manila.
ASSERCO cited that in the order of the said court just last 17 February 2022, the Makati court had ruled that the Office of the President was not an indispensable party.
“The issue of whether the Office of the President is an indispensable party was already resolved by the Honorable Court in its Order dated 17 February 2022,” the ASSERCO, represented by the Bernas Law Offices, said.
“The Honorable Court’s February 2021 finding that the Office of the President is not an indispensable party has attained finality because no Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration after receiving the Honorable Court’s Order dated 17 February 2022. It was not an issue to be revisited or resolved in the Decision nor the Motion for Reconsideration,” ASSERCO stressed.
ASSERCO also argued that the court had already resolved that the PRA revoked and canceled their award and not the Office of the President, which negated the need to implead the latter.
“The Honorable Court has already resolved that Respondent PRA revoked and canceled Petitioner’s Award and not the Office of the President. Assuming for the sake of an argument that the president case may be legally and procedurally be re-opened, still, the outcome of the dispute will not be changed by impleading the Office of the President, given that the issues are essentially legal,” ASSERCO said.
ASSERCO said that the Office of the President, in one of its letters to the PRA, had instructed that the vested rights of third parties must not be prejudiced by the joint venture reclamation project led by Waterfront Manila.
“In the Memorandum from the Executive Secretary to the PRA dated 28 November 2019, it was expressly stated by the Office of the President that pursuant to Executive Order No. 74 (s.2019) that the PRA Governing Board has the power to approve reclamation projects; hence, it was Respondent PRA and not the Office of the President who prejudiced the Petitioner,” ASSERCO said.
“At the end of the day, the reclamation project was not bidded out by Respondent PRA or any other National Government Agency. It was conceived by Respondent Waterfront Manila, a private party, end enabled by the City of Manila, and then folded into Respondent PRA to provide the illusion that the Waterfront reclamation is a national government project,” ASSERCO said.
In the 4 August order of Baybay, the Makati court said the petitioner failed to “implead” the Office of the President, which it said was an indispensable party, when it sued the joint venture parties and stakeholders Philippine Reclamation Authority, the City of Manila and Gatchalian-led Waterfront Manila Premier Development Corp.
“In the absence of the indispensable party in the instant case, the assailed decision should be vacated,” Baybay said in his ruling.
“Accordingly, for the petitioner’s failure to implead the Office of the President as public respondent, the decision is premature,” Baybay said in his nine-page order, which acted favorably on the 11 May appeals of the joint venture parties.
The new order came six days after presiding judge Benjamin Pozon retired last 29 July.