Asias Emerging Dragon v DOTC and MIAA, GR 169914

Republic v CA and Cong. Baterina., GR 174166

Intervention
Facts:
The facts of the two cases are intertwined, both involves the controversies surrounding the NAIA
Airport III (NAIA3) project.
The facts from a case named Agan v. PIATCO serves as a background. In 1993, six business leaders
John Gokongwei, Henry Sy, Sr., Lucio Tan, George Ty, and Alfonso Yuchengco met with then
president FVR for a possibility of investing the construction of a new airport terminal. They
formed the company Asias Emerging Dragon Corp. (AEDC) to pursue this goal.
AEDC then gave an unsolicited proposal to the Govt through the DOTC/MIAA for the
development of NAIA3 under the Build-Operate-Transfer Law (BOT). Afterwards, DOTC
created its Pre-qualification Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) to implement the NAIA3
project as the overseer for biddings.
Afterwards, then DOTC Secretary Garcia endorsed the proposal of AEDC to National Economic
and Development Authority (NEDA), whose technical committee eventually approved it.
Afterwards, AEDC and DOTC signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which
essentially awards to AEDC the NAIA3 project, with provisions that AEDC must have a soft
opening in two years.
Then, DOTC published in newspapers invitation for competitive comparative proposals on
AEDCs unsolicited proposal, in accordance with a law that governs unsolicited proposals.
Essentially, it required interested bidders to submit 3 separate sealed envelopes: first on prequalification documents, second on technical proposals, and lastly on the financial proposal.
Paircargo Consortium (which eventually changed name to PIATCO, a consortium composed of
Peoples Air Cargo and Warehousing, Inc., Phil. Air and Ground Services, and Security Bank
Corp.) submitted their competitive proposal to PBAC. The envelopes will be opened over a
period of time, each one opened only if the previous envelope would qualify. AEDC would then
oppose each instance the sealed envelopes would be opened, citing primarily PIATCOs dubious
financial capabilities to undergo with the project.
Eventually, PBAC found PIATCOs proposal to be more favorable to the government and
required AEDC to match its proposal. Instead, AEDC protested the undue preference given to
PIATCO. Subsequently, after a series of passes before the NEDA Investment Committee, DOTC
issued a notice of award to PIATCO, and had signed a concession agreement.
AEDC then filed with the RTC a petition for Declaration of nullity of the proceedings (the
DOTC/NEDA/PBAC approval proceedings) (This is the Agan v. PIATCO case) against DOTC,

and PBAC. It was in this case that Cong. Baterina in GR 174166 filed a motion for Intervention
and petition-in-intervention, along with other group and MIAA employees who allege that they
stand the risk of unemployment upon the implementation of the agreements.
a. RTC in this case granted the intervention of Baterina and MIAA. For Baterina, they
were granted standing in view of serious legal questions involved and their impact to
public interest
b. RTC in this case ruled that the concession agreements were null and void. MRs of
PIATCO denied with finality.
c. Other issues are not relevant to our topic.
-------Then, there is another case, Republic v. Gingoyon, which dealt with the expropriation of NAIA3
because it remained in the possession of PIATCO after the decision in Agan. In this case, the Govt
sought to take control of the facilities and deposited 3B+(through MIAA) in Land Bank
representing NAIA3s assessed value. Govt prayed for a writ of possession over NAIA3
Afterwards in Gingoyon, RTC gave two orders, first being the Order that it will implement the
writ of possession only after the payment of 3B+ as just compensation (expropriation), second as
the next order partially granting Govt MR on the first Order. But still unsatisfied, the Govt filed
another MR for partial reconsideration of the second order. It was during this reconsideration
of the second order that Baterina and others also sought to intervene. (in sum, Baterina
intervened in two instances)
Baterina wanted to intervene in this expropriation proceeding by asserting his legal interest by
virtue of being a legislator, taxpayer, and concerned citizen. They were saying that the
government need not pay PIATCO because the agreements were deemed null and void.
RTC in Gingoyon denied Baterina (and others) Intervention with finality. Afterwards, it directed
MIAA to immediately release to PIATCO the proferred value of 3B+. It was here that AEDC filed
a motion for leave to admit attached answer-in-intervention, asserting that they should be given
preference over NAIA3 because of the MOU, and also its right as the projects original proponent.
Issue: W/N Baterina and AEDC may intervene
Held: No to both.
Ratio:
For Baterina, they did not meet the requisite legal interest for a party-in-intervention and they
could not be deemed as indispensable parties in the cases they intervened in because:
1. The amount directed by the court to be paid by the Govt to PIATCO came from the money
deposited by MIAA (3B+), which the court deemed as a public corporation enjoying
autonomy whose budgets need not be approved by the Congress.
2. The interests of Baterina may be duly litigated in a separate proceeding.

For AEDC,
1. One of the main issues resolved by the court is the issue of unsolicited proposals.
Applying several laws, the court(s) ruled that AEDC has no right to intervene as the
existing laws essentially say that the rights of an entity who gave an unsolicited proposal
would be defeated if the project was not awarded to them in a proper bidding. Hence,
given that AEDC was defeated by PIATCO in the bidding with PBAC, it didnt have a
right over NAIA3
2. Even if there is a MOU executed between them and DOTC, the lower courts invalidated(?)
that MOU.
3. Hence, AEDC has no legal right as an intervenor in the expropriation case.