CA affirms Park N Ride ruling

THE Court of Appeals has affirmed its decision reversing the cancellation of the lease contract for the Park N Ride property in Manila during the term of Mayor Isko Moreno.

In a five-page ruling dated August 12, the appellate court’s Former Fourth Division through Associate Justice Geraldine Fiel-Macaraeg directed the Manila city government to return the property to the Park N Ride lessee, and for the Manila City Regional Trial Court to conduct a hearing on the money claims of Park N Ride Inc. (PNRI)

The case stemmed from the decision of the city government to cancel the Park N Ride lease in 2021 due to alleged contractual violations, such as non-payment of rental fees and failure to secure risk insurance.

The lease contract called for PNRI to develop a parcel of land located between the Metropolitan Theater and Mehan Garden, to create parking spaces for those who were transacting official business with the Manila City Hall.

PNRI developed the property into a parking complex and started its operation.

Prior to this, the city government informed Park N Ride Inc. that it wanted to sell the property to raise more money to fund its response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

PNRI requested reconsideration of the cancellation of the lease contract but the city government proceeded with the cancellation, then took possession of the leased property, prompting PNRI to file a case before the RTC, which ruled in favor of Manila.

PNRI then elevated the case to the CA, and on April 30 this year, the appellate court reversed the RTC’s June 5, 2023 decision.

The city government then filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that Moreno’s action cancelling the lease contract is “an executive function beyond the ambit of a writ of certiorari. It further said cancellation of the lease is a quasi-judicial function, and that no grave abuse of discretion can be attributed to it with respect to such act.

The city government also argued that it is the Commission on Audit which has jurisdiction over PNRI’s money claim, and that the money claim cannot be joined in a petition for certiorari, which is a special civil action.

But the CA rejected the city government’s arguments and upheld its