A TRIAL court in Cebu City has dismissed for lack of merit a private port operator’s bid to stop the Cebu Port Authority (CPA) from allowing cargo vessels to use the facilities of Cebu South Harbor and Container Terminal Corp. (CSHCTC).
In an eight-page order dated September 25, Presiding Judge Leah Geraldez of Cebu City Regional Trial Court Branch 20 held that petitioner Oriental Port and Allied Services Corp. (OPASCOR) failed to establish a clear legal right that would justify injunctive relief.
OPASCOR sought the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and writ of preliminary injunction against CPA General Manager Francisco Comendador III and CSHCTC.
It sought to restrain the CPA from authorizing vessels to dock and berth at CSHCTC’s private port under circumstances that OPASCOR claimed violated existing government regulations and the terminal’s permit.
The court, however, held that OPASCOR failed to establish a clear and unmistakable right entitled to protection, a key requirement for the issuance of an injunction.
It noted that before such a right could be recognized, the court would first have to determine whether the CPA violated Administrative Order No. 02-2010 and its board resolutions, and whether CSHCTC was operating beyond the terms of its permit.
These issues remain contested and are also under review by the Department of Transportation (DOTr).
‘Thus, OPASCOR has failed to establish the first requisite for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction,’ the court said.
The RTC also found no urgency warranting immediate judicial intervention.
It noted that OPASCOR itself acknowledged that Maersk Filipinas Inc. transferred its foreign cargo operations to CSHCTC in July 2024 but did not seek injunctive relief until more than two years later.
The delay, the court said, ‘belies its claim of urgency.’
The court likewise held that OPASCOR failed to establish that it would suffer irreparable injury if an injunction were not issued.
‘Damages are irreparable within the meaning of the rule relative to the issuance of injunction where there is no standard by which their amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy,’ the court said.
It further warned that granting a preliminary injunction could effectively resolve the central legal dispute even before the case undergoes a full trial.
‘Lastly, the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction would effectively result in the determination of the merits of this case before the holding of a full trial,’ the court said.