The Supreme Court ruled that the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA) could validly terminate the Pagsanjan Tourism Consumers’ Cooperative’s (PTCC) operation of a restaurant and boat ride services within the PTA Complex. This decision underscores the principle that when an entity operates a business on government property merely through tolerance, the government agency can revoke that privilege without liability, especially when pursuing its mandated duties and exercising management prerogatives. This case clarifies the extent of government authority over entities operating within its properties under permissive arrangements, protecting the PTA’s right to manage its tourism zones effectively.

From Cooperative to Closure: Weighing Tolerance Against Tourism Mandates

The core of this case revolves around the operations of the Pagsanjan Tourism Consumers’ Cooperative (PTCC) within the Philippine Gorge Tourist Zone (PGTZ) Administration Complex. Since 1989, the PTCC, a cooperative organized under Republic Act No. 6938, operated a restaurant and boat ride services within the complex, paying a percentage of its earnings to the PTA. However, in 1993, the PTA initiated a reorganization and directed the PTCC to cease its operations due to planned rehabilitation and upgrading projects. This directive sparked a legal battle, with the PTCC claiming a right to continue its operations and seeking injunctive relief and damages against the PTA and its area manager, Rodolfo Laborte.

The PTCC argued that the cessation of its operations was unlawful and caused significant financial losses to the cooperative and its members. They sought to prevent the PTA from closing the restaurant and interfering with their boat ride services, claiming a vested right to continue operating based on their long-standing presence in the complex. On the other hand, the PTA maintained that the PTCC’s operation was merely tolerated as a form of assistance to the cooperative and that the PTA had the right to implement its rehabilitation projects and manage its properties as it saw fit. The central legal question was whether the PTA’s act of terminating the PTCC’s operations was a valid exercise of its management prerogative or an unlawful deprivation of the PTCC’s supposed rights.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially sided with the PTCC, awarding significant damages to the cooperative and its members. The RTC reasoned that the PTA’s actions were tainted with bad faith. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, focusing on the PTA’s mandate to administer tourism zones and its inherent management rights over its properties. The Court emphasized that the PTCC’s operation was based solely on the PTA’s tolerance, not on any contractual agreement or concession.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court analyzed the concept of tolerance in property rights. The Court stated that tolerance does not create a vested right for the tolerated party. In the absence of a formal contract, concession, or franchise, the PTCC’s claim to a right to continue operating the restaurant and boat ride services could not be sustained.

Except for receipts for rents paid by the PTCC to the PTA, the respondents failed to show any contract, concession agreement or franchise to operate the restaurant and boat ride services. In fact, the PTCC initially did not implead the PTA in its Complaint since it was well aware that there was no contract executed between the PTCC and the PTA. While the PTCC has been operating the restaurant and boat ride services for almost ten (10) years until its closure, the same was by mere tolerance of the PTA.

The Court also examined whether the PTA had acted in bad faith. The appellate court focused on the sufficient notice provided to the PTCC regarding the impending rehabilitation projects and the need to vacate the premises. The Supreme Court found that the PTA had indeed provided adequate notice and that the temporary engagement of another restaurant operator (New Selecta Restaurant) did not indicate bad faith, as it was merely a contingency measure to serve guests during the transition. The court noted that there was no contract of any kind.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court addressed the liability of Rodolfo Laborte, the PTA Area Manager, who was initially held jointly and severally liable with the PTA. The Court clarified that Laborte was simply implementing the lawful orders of the PTA Management. As a general rule, an officer cannot be held personally liable for the consequences of their actions if they acted in behalf of the corporation, within the scope of their authority, and in good faith. Thus, the Court found no basis to hold Laborte liable.

In determining the liability of government agencies, it is essential to consider their statutory mandates and the scope of their management prerogatives. The PTA, as a government-owned and controlled corporation tasked with administering tourism zones, has the authority to implement projects and policies that it deems necessary for the improvement and development of these zones. This authority includes the right to terminate permissive arrangements that no longer align with its strategic objectives, provided that such actions are taken in good faith and with due notice.

This decision also sheds light on the procedural aspects of presenting evidence in court. The Court noted that the petitioners’ failure to formally offer certain evidence was not fatal to their case because the evidence had been duly identified by testimony, recorded, and included in the case records. This underscores the principle that courts may relax the strict rules of evidence when the essential requirements of identification and recordation have been met, ensuring that justice is not thwarted by mere technicalities. Evidence presented through testimony and found in court records can be admissible even when not formally offered.

This ruling contrasts with scenarios where contractual obligations or concessions are in place. In such cases, government agencies may face legal challenges if they unilaterally terminate these agreements without just cause or due process. However, in the absence of such binding agreements, the agency’s right to manage its properties and pursue its statutory mandates takes precedence. It is essential for entities operating on government properties to understand the nature of their arrangements and to secure formal agreements whenever possible to protect their interests. Without this protection, their operations depend on the government agency tolerance.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores that while the government should encourage and support cooperative endeavors, it cannot be compelled to continue arrangements that are merely based on tolerance, especially when such arrangements impede the government’s ability to fulfill its mandated duties and exercise its management prerogatives. This decision offers a reminder that tolerance, while initially beneficial, does not create legally protected rights. Parties should seek formal agreements to secure their long-term interests when dealing with government entities.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA) could validly terminate the Pagsanjan Tourism Consumers’ Cooperative’s (PTCC) operation of a restaurant and boat ride services within the PTA Complex. The court examined if the PTCC had a right to continue operations based on tolerance.
What is the significance of the term “tolerance” in this case?	Tolerance means that the PTCC was allowed to operate without a formal contract or concession. This implied that the PTA could revoke this permission at any time without incurring liability, as it did not create a vested right.
Did the PTCC have a formal agreement with the PTA?	No, the PTCC did not have a formal contract, concession agreement, or franchise to operate the restaurant and boat ride services. Their operation was based solely on the PTA’s tolerance.
Why did the PTA decide to terminate the PTCC’s operations?	The PTA terminated the PTCC’s operations to implement a comprehensive program to rehabilitate and upgrade the facilities of the PTA Complex, aligning with its mandate to administer tourism zones.
Was the PTA required to compensate the PTCC for terminating their operations?	No, the PTA was not required to compensate the PTCC because the cooperative’s operation was based on mere tolerance and there was no contractual obligation to provide compensation upon termination.
Was Rodolfo Laborte, the PTA Area Manager, held liable in this case?	No, Rodolfo Laborte was not held liable because he was acting within the scope of his authority and in good faith, implementing the lawful orders of the PTA Management.
What evidence did the PTA present to justify their actions?	The PTA presented programs of work, certificates of availability of funds, and communications to the PTCC, demonstrating the planned rehabilitation and upgrading projects for the PTA Complex.
Can a government agency terminate a permissive arrangement at any time?	Yes, a government agency can terminate a permissive arrangement at any time, provided they act in good faith and with due notice, especially when pursuing their statutory mandates and exercising management prerogatives.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case clarifies the limits of permissive arrangements with government entities and reinforces the right of government agencies to manage their properties in accordance with their statutory mandates. It also underscores the importance of formalizing agreements to protect the interests of all parties involved. This ruling serves as a significant precedent for similar cases involving the operation of businesses on government-owned properties.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Rodolfo Laborte and Philippine Tourism Authority v. Pagsanjan Tourism Consumers’ Cooperative, G.R. No. 183860, January 15, 2014