GR 210805; (May, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. 210805, May 11, 2021
DAISY JOY ROJALLO CERVANTES, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. H.E. BENIGNO SIMEON AQUINO III, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioners, comprising patients, employees of the Philippine Orthopedic Center (POC), health professionals, and legislators, filed a special civil action for Certiorari and Prohibition. They sought to annul the proposed privatization/commercialization of the POC and the award of the Modernization of the POC Project (MPOC Project) to the Consortium of Megawide Construction Corporation and World Citi Medical Center (private respondents). The project was to be implemented via a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) arrangement under the BOT Law (RA 6957 as amended by RA 7718). The NEDA Board, chaired by then-President Aquino, approved the project, and the DOH executed a BOT Agreement with the Consortium on March 6, 2014. Petitioners contended the privatization would violate the constitutional right to health by drastically reducing charity beds, contravene RA 1939 requiring 90% free beds in government hospitals, violate employees’ security of tenure, and illegally expand the BOT Law to cover health services. They also argued the contract was disadvantageous to the public. During the pendency of the case, the DOH and the Consortium mutually agreed to terminate the BOT Agreement effective January 22, 2018, due to the Consortium’s failure to achieve financial close for the project.
ISSUE
Whether the petition for certiorari and prohibition, seeking to annul the BOT Agreement for the MPOC Project and to enjoin its implementation, has been rendered moot and academic by the mutual termination of said agreement.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition for being moot and academic. The Court held that the mutual termination of the BOT Agreement on January 22, 2018, rendered the resolution of the issues raised and the reliefs sought by the petitioners of no practical or legal effect. The core reliefs—annulment of the BOT Agreement and a permanent injunction against the MPOC Project—were predicated on the existence of the agreement. Since the agreement was already terminated, a judgment on the merits could no longer provide any actual substantial relief to the petitioners. The Court declined jurisdiction, as the case no longer presented a justiciable controversy.