G.R. No. 177130; June 7, 2011
HON. EDUARDO ERMITA in his official capacity as THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, Petitioner, vs. HON. JENNY LIND R. ALDECOA-DELORINO, Presiding Judge, Branch 137, Regional Trial Court, Makati City, ASSOCIATION OF PETROCHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS OF THE PHILIPPINES, representing JG Summit Petrochemical Corporation, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

Then Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita filed a petition for certiorari assailing the Omnibus Order dated February 6, 2007, issued by Judge Jenny Lind R. Aldecoa-Delorino of the RTC of Makati City, Branch 137. The Order denied the government’s Motion to Dismiss and granted a writ of preliminary injunction in favor of the Association of Petrochemical Manufacturers of the Philippines (APMP). The injunction enjoined the implementation of Executive Order No. 486 (E.O. 486), issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on January 12, 2006. E.O. 486 lifted the suspension of the tariff reduction schedule on petrochemicals and certain plastic products under the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) Common Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT) scheme, effectively reducing protective tariff rates from 10% to 5% for imports from ASEAN member states. APMP filed a petition before the RTC (Civil Case No. 06-2004) seeking to declare E.O. 486 unconstitutional for allegedly violating Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6647 (prohibiting the President from increasing or reducing taxes while Congress is in session) and Section 402(e) of the Tariff and Customs Code. The petitioner argued that the RTC gravely abused its discretion by assuming jurisdiction over a petition for prohibition against a quasi-legislative act and by granting the injunction, as the members of APMP had no vested right to protective tariff rates, which are government privileges.

ISSUE

1. Whether public respondent erred in assuming jurisdiction over the petition for prohibition and not granting petitioner’s motion to dismiss the petition;
2. Whether a motion for reconsideration should have been filed by petitioner; and
3. Whether public respondent erred in granting the writ of preliminary injunction in favor of APMP.

RULING

1. On Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court ruled that public respondent erred in assuming jurisdiction. A petition for prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court lies only against persons exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions. The issuance of E.O. 486 by the President was an exercise of a quasi-legislative function, as it involved the adjustment of tariff rates pursuant to statutory authority (Sections 401 and 402 of the Tariff and Customs Code). Prohibition is not an available remedy to assail legislative or quasi-legislative acts. Therefore, the RTC had no jurisdiction over APMP’s petition for prohibition, and it should have granted the Motion to Dismiss.
2. On the Necessity of a Motion for Reconsideration: The Court found that the filing of a motion for reconsideration of the Omnibus Order was not a condition precedent to filing the certiorari petition. The issues raised were purely questions of law concerning the RTC’s jurisdiction and the propriety of the injunctive relief. Furthermore, given the public interest involved in the implementation of an executive order concerning international trade commitments, the Court deemed it proper to dispense with the requirement.
3. On the Grant of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction: The Supreme Court ruled that public respondent erred in granting the writ of preliminary injunction. For an injunction to be issued, the applicant must show a clear and unmistakable right to be protected, which is actual and material. The right asserted by APMP’s members was the preservation of protective tariff rates. The Court held that protective tariff rates are privileges granted by the state, and no one can claim a vested right to their continuation. The alleged injury from the implementation of E.O. 486—the influx of cheaper imported products—constituted a future, contingent economic injury, not a present, substantial, and irreparable right warranting injunctive relief. Consequently, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the injunction.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The Petition for Certiorari was GRANTED. The Omnibus Order dated February 6, 2007, of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 137, was ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The writ of preliminary injunction was LIFTED. The RTC was ORDERED to dismiss Civil Case No. 06-2004.