Back

Agan Jr. vs Philippine International Air Terminals Co. (PIATCO) [SEPARATE OPINION, VITUG, J.]

DEMOSTHENES P. AGAN, JR., JOSEPH B. CATAHAN, JOSE MARI B. REUNILLA, MANUEL ANTONIO B. BONE, MAMERTO S. CLARA, REUEL E. DIMALANTA, MORY V. DOMALAON, CONRADO G. DIMAANO, LOLITA R. HIZON, REMEDIOS P. ADOLFO, BIENVENIDO C. HILARIO, MIASCOR WORKERS UNION - NATIONAL LABOR UNION (MWU-NLU), and PHILIPPINE AIRLINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PALEA), petitioners vs. PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS CO., INC., MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS and SECRETARY LEANDRO M. MENDOZA, in his capacity as Head of the Department of Transportation and Communications, respondents, / MIASCOR GROUNDHANDLING CORPORATION, DNATA-WINGS AVIATION SYSTEMS CORPORATION, MACROASIA-EUREST SERVICES, INC., MACROASIA-MENZIES AIRPORT SERVICES CORPORATION, MIASCOR CATERING SERVICES CORPORATION, MIASCOR AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE CORPORATION, and MIASCOR LOGISTICS CORPORATION, petitioners-in-intervention, [SEPARATE OPINION, VITUG, J.]

G.R. No. 155001 | 2003-05-05

SEPARATE OPINION 

VITUG, J.:


This Court is bereft of jurisdiction to hear the petitions at bar. The Constitution provides that the Supreme Court shall exercise original jurisdiction over, among other actual controversies, petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.[1] The cases in question, although denominated to be petitions for prohibition, actually pray for the nullification of the PIATCO contracts and to restrain respondents from implementing said agreements for being illegal and unconstitutional. 

Section 2, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court states: 

"When the proceedings of any tribunal,...