GR L 58794; (August, 1984) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-58794 and G.R. No. L-64489, August 24, 1984
SPOUSES LYDIA TERRADO & MARTIN ROSARIO, DOMINGO FERNANDEZ, and EMILIANO GARLITOS, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. FELICIDAD CARANDANG VILLALON, Judge, CFI of Pangasinan, Deputy Sheriff OSCAR SIBUNA of Pangasinan, and GERUNCIO LACUESTA, respondents.
FACTS
The Municipality of Bayambang, Pangasinan, enacted Ordinance No. 8, s. 1974, designating private respondent Geruncio Lacuesta as Manager-Administrator of the Mangabul Fisheries for 25 years. The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources disapproved the ordinance for granting fishery privileges without the required competitive public bidding under Act No. 4003 (The Fisheries Act). Lacuesta’s appeal to the Office of the President was later withdrawn. Consequently, the municipality passed a resolution to subject the fisheries to public bidding, wherein petitioners emerged as winning bidders and were placed in possession.
Lacuesta filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus in the CFI, which issued a restraining order against the municipality from executing leases with the winning bidders. The CFI later issued orders to enforce this restraint and restore Lacuesta’s possession. Petitioners, the winning bidders, challenged these orders, arguing that the underlying ordinance and Lacuesta’s management contract were void from the start due to the lack of public bidding.
ISSUE
Whether Municipal Ordinance No. 8, s. 1974, and the consequent management contract with Geruncio Lacuesta are valid.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the ordinance and the contract are null and void. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory requirement of public bidding for the grant of fishery privileges in municipal waters. Act No. 4003 , as amended, explicitly requires such competitive public bidding to ensure transparency, fairness, and the best possible return for the municipality. By designating Lacuesta as Manager-Administrator for a 25-year term without conducting a public bidding, Ordinance No. 8 contravened this essential statutory condition. The disapproval by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources on this precise ground was correct and rendered the ordinance invalid ab initio.
Since the ordinance was void, the management contract derived from it conferred no legal rights upon Lacuesta. Consequently, all subsequent court orders and writs of execution issued to enforce this contract and restore Lacuesta’s possession, including the Alias Writ of Execution dated November 6, 1981, and the Order and Writ dated October 8, 1982, were issued without legal basis and were therefore nullified. The Court emphasized obedience to higher court resolutions, noting the irregularity of an order issued by a judge after being relieved from the case. The petitions were granted, and the assailed writs and orders were set aside.