Facts:

The case involves the Anti-Trapo Movement of the Philippines, represented by Leon E. Peralta, as the petitioner, and the Land Transportation Office (LTO), represented by its head Edgar C. Galvante, as the respondent. The events leading to the case began on December 1, 2016, when the LTO's Bids and Awards Committee published an Invitation to Bid for the procurement of driver's license cards with a five-year validity for the calendar year 2017, with an approved budget of PHP 836,000,000. Pre-bid conferences were held on December 8, 2016, and January 3, 2017, with several companies, including Banner Plasticard, Inc., Kolonwel Trading, and Dermalog Identification Systems, submitting bids. On January 31, 2017, the bids were opened, revealing that Banner had the Lowest Calculated Bid (LCB) at PHP 750,000,000. However, on February 9, 2017, the LTO's Bids and Awards Committee issued a resolution disqualifying Banner for failing to meet specific technical requirements. Fol...

Facts:

Procurement Process and Bidding

• On December 1, 2016, the Land Transportation Office (LTO) published an Invitation to Bid for the procurement of driver’s license cards with a five-year validity for calendar year 2017, with an approved budget of ₱836,000,000.00.
• Pre-bid conferences were held on December 8, 2016, and January 3, 2017.
• Several bidders submitted their bids, including:

- Banner Plasticard, Inc. (“Banner”) - Kolonwel Trading and PT Pura Barutama Joint Venture (“Kolonwel”) - Dermalog Identification Systems, CFP Strategic Transaction Advisors Joint Venture (“Dermalog”) - Banner: ₱750,000,000.00 - Kolonwel: ₱814,320,000.00 - Dermalog: ₱829,663,897.93 (recomputed to ₱829,668,053.55)

Post-Qualification and Subsequent Developments

• On February 9, 2017, the BAC issued a Resolution to post-disqualify Banner for non-compliance with specific technical and documentary bid requirements, including:

- Failure to clearly demonstrate the required technical specifications of the fingerprint identification system. - Inadequate compliance regarding the subcontracting arrangement, particularly the absence of required eligibility documents for the manufacturers.

Filing of the Petition for Prohibition

• On May 26, 2017, the Anti-Trapo Movement, represented by its Founding Chair Leon E. Peralta, filed a Petition for Prohibition against the LTO.
• The petition sought to enjoin LTO from proceeding with the contract award to Dermalog, including a prayer for a temporary restraining order to suspend further contract implementation.
• Petitioner alleged that:

- LTO gravely abused its discretion by awarding the contract without resolving Banner’s Request for Reconsideration. - The protest process mandated under Section 55 and Section 57 of Republic Act No. 9184 was violated. - The contract award was disadvantageous to the government, particularly because Dermalog’s bid price was approximately 10.53% higher than Banner’s, potentially burdening around 8.36 million Filipino drivers an additional cumulative cost of roughly ₱79,668,053.55. - The issuance of the Notice to Proceed and subsequent contract execution rendered the actions irreversible. - Lack of legal standing and capacity to sue on the part of the petitioner. - That the act the petitioner sought to enjoin was already a “fait accompli.” - That the procedural protest mechanism under Republic Act No. 9184 had been complied with where applicable, noting Banner’s protest failed to meet the statutory requirements.

Issue:

Legal Capacity and Standing

• Whether the Anti-Trapo Movement, as represented by its Founding Chair Leon E. Peralta, possesses the legal capacity and standing to sue, particularly when its organizational credentials and the authority of its representative were questioned by respondent.
• Whether the submission of a Certificate of Incorporation and the Secretary’s Certification sufficiently established the petitioner’s status as an organization of concerned citizens with legal personality.

Applicability of the Writ of Prohibition

• Whether the petition for prohibition is an appropriate remedy given that the contractual award and execution of the contract with Dermalog have already been completed.
• Whether a preventive remedy like prohibition can be invoked to halt an act that has already been “consummated” or is continuing by nature.

Allegation of Grave Abuse of Discretion

• Whether LTO gravely abused its discretion in awarding the contract to Dermalog without resolving Banner’s Request for Reconsideration.
• Whether LTO improperly failed to act on an Observer’s Report submitted by the Anti-Trapo Movement prior to issuing the Notice to Proceed.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)