Title
Anti-Trapo Movement of the Philippines vs. Land Transportation Office
Case
G.R. No. 231540
Decision Date
Jun 27, 2022
Anti-Trapo Movement challenged LTO's contract award to Dermalog for driver's license cards, alleging procurement violations. SC dismissed, citing lack of legal standing, no grave abuse, and proper process.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-30527)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background of the Procurement
    • On December 1, 2016, the Land Transportation Office (LTO) through its Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) published an Invitation to Bid for the procurement of driver's license cards with a five-year validity for calendar year 2017.
    • The approved budget for the contract was ₱836,000,000.00.
    • Pre-bid conferences were held on December 8, 2016, and January 3, 2017.
    • Among the bidders were Banner Plasticard, Inc. (Banner), Kolonwel Trading and PT Pura Barutama Joint Venture (Kolonwel), and Dermalog Identification Systems, and CFP Strategic Transaction Advisors Joint Venture (Dermalog).
  • Bidding and Evaluation Process
    • On January 31, 2017, the BAC Technical Working Group (TWG) opened the sealed bids. Banner, Kolonwel, and Dermalog passed eligibility and technical requirements initially.
    • Financial bids revealed: Banner at ₱750,000,000.00, Kolonwel at ₱814,320,000.00, and Dermalog at ₱829,668,053.55 (after recomputation).
    • Banner was initially declared Lowest Calculated Bid (LCB), subject to submission of post-qualification documents.
    • On February 3, 2017, Notice of LCB was sent to Banner.
  • Post-qualification and Challenges
    • On February 9, 2017, the BAC issued a resolution post-disqualifying Banner for non-responsiveness to critical bid requirements:
a) Failure to demonstrate compliance with required accuracy in fingerprint record matching (99.9%). b) Failure to meet one-second response time for 1:N search as per manufacturer’s sales literature. c) Failure to submit eligibility documents of subcontractors/manufacturers as required.
  • Kolonwel was issued Notice of Second Lowest Calculated Bid, later post-disqualified on February 16, 2017.
  • Subsequently, Dermalog was issued Notice of Third Lowest Calculated Bid on February 16, 2017.
  • Banner’s Request for Reconsideration on its disqualification was denied on February 20, 2017.
  • Banner filed a protest before the LTO Assistant Secretary, which was denied in an undated decision affirming the post-disqualification.
  • Post-qualification of Dermalog and Award
    • On March 29, 2017, the TWG conducted a proof-of-concept (POC) demonstration of Dermalog, witnessed by the Anti-Trapo Movement (petitioner) as observers among others.
    • The TWG found Dermalog compliant and recommended it as the Lowest Calculated Responsive Bid (LCRB).
    • On March 31, 2017, the BAC declared Dermalog post-qualified and recommended awarding the contract.
    • Notice of Award was issued to Dermalog on April 3, 2017, and Contract Agreement and Notice to Proceed were executed in early April 2017.
  • Actions of Petitioner (Anti-Trapo Movement)
    • The Anti-Trapo Movement submitted observations on the POC procedure, pointing out issues such as absence of Commission on Audit representative, lack of checklist in the POC, alleged inadequacies in Dermalog’s responses, and absence of visible security features on the sample cards.
    • On May 26, 2017, the Anti-Trapo Movement filed a Petition for Prohibition to enjoin LTO from proceeding with the contract with Dermalog and prayed for a temporary restraining order (TRO).
    • The petition alleged grave abuse of discretion by the LTO in awarding the contract allegedly disadvantageous to the government, violation of protest procedure under RA 9184, and failure to act on observations before issuing the Notice to Proceed.
  • Respondent’s Position
    • Respondent moved for dismissal due to petitioner’s lack of legal capacity and standing.
    • Argued that contract award is final as the acting of prohibition was sought against an act already accomplished (fait accompli).
    • Asserted no grave abuse of discretion, compliance with bid processes, and that non-submission of protest fee and verification made Banner’s request not a valid protest.
    • Emphasized that observations made by petitioner as observers do not bind the LTO and non-submission of report within required period presumes compliance.
    • Rejected allegations based on newspaper articles as hearsay and inadmissible.

Issues:

  • Whether the Anti-Trapo Movement of the Philippines has legal capacity to sue.
  • Whether the Anti-Trapo Movement has legal standing to file the Petition for Prohibition before the Supreme Court.
  • Whether the act of awarding the contract and issuing the Notice to Proceed to Dermalog is already fait accompli, hence beyond the scope of prohibition.
  • Whether the LTO committed grave abuse of discretion in awarding the contract to Dermalog without resolving Banner's Request for Reconsideration.
  • Whether the LTO gravely abused its discretion in not acting upon the Anti-Trapo Movement’s Observer’s Report prior to issuing the Notice to Proceed.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms