Case Digest (G.R. No. 220832)
Facts:
The case involves the Bureau of Customs (BOC), represented by Commissioner Alberto D. Lina, and the Department of Budget and Management-Procurement Service (DBM-PS), represented by Executive Director Jose Tomas C. Syquia, as petitioners against Hon. Paulino Q. Gallegos, the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 47, and the purported joint venture of Omniprime Marketing, Inc. and Intrasoft International, Inc., represented by Annabelle A. Margaroli, as respondents. The events leading to this case began on December 20, 2006, when ASEAN member countries, including the Philippines, signed the Protocol to Establish and Implement the ASEAN Single Window (ASW Protocol). This agreement aimed to develop National Single Windows (NSW) based on international standards for trade facilitation and customs modernization. The Philippines initiated its NSW project in phases, with Phase One completed in October 2010 and Phase Two, known as the Enhanced Customs Proce...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 220832)
Facts:
Background of the Case
- On December 20, 2006, ASEAN member-countries, including the Philippines, signed the ASEAN Single Window (ASW) Protocol, which aimed to develop and implement National Single Windows (NSW) based on international standards for trade facilitation and customs modernization.
- The Philippines initiated Phase One of the NSW project (PNSW 1) in 2009, completed in October 2010. This was followed by Phase Two (PNSW 2), which aimed to integrate the existing Electronic to Mobile Customs System and PNSW 1 into a single system for fully electronic, paperless customs processing.
Procurement Process
- The Bureau of Customs (BOC), through the Department of Budget and Management-Procurement Service (DBM-PS), issued a Request for Expression of Interest (RFEI) on October 15, 2014, for the PNSW 2 project with a budget of P650 Million.
- Among the bidders were the Joint Venture of Omniprime Marketing, Inc. and Intrasoft International, Inc. (private respondent) and E-Konek & ILS & FS JV, whose biggest shareholder was BOC Commissioner Alberto D. Lina.
- The bidding process was delayed due to an unnecessary interview of private respondent’s Project Team Members, which was not required by law or regulation.
- On April 13, 2015, the DBM-PS Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) issued a Notice of Highest Rated Bid (HRB) and an Invitation to Negotiate to the private respondent as the highest bidder.
Cancellation of the Bidding Process
- On April 23, 2015, Commissioner Lina was appointed as BOC Commissioner. On May 6, 2015, he wrote a letter to DBM-PS Executive Director Jose Tomas C. Syquia, requesting the discontinuance of the PNSW 2 project procurement under Section 41(c) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act), which allows the head of the procuring agency to reject bids for justifiable grounds.
- On May 7, 2015, Director Syquia issued a Notice of Cancellation, aborting the bidding process. The private respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied on July 31, 2015.
Legal Action
- The private respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with a prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 47, seeking to annul the cancellation and compel the continuation of the bidding process.
- The RTC issued a TRO on July 28, 2015, and an Omnibus Order on August 24, 2015, granting the private respondent’s application for a WPI, enjoining the cancellation of the bidding process and ordering the continuation of the procurement process.
Issue:
- Whether Judge Paulino Q. Gallegos gravely abused his discretion in issuing the Omnibus Order and the Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI).
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the RTC’s Omnibus Order. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by Judge Gallegos in issuing the WPI.
Procedural Aspect
- The petitioners failed to file a motion for reconsideration before resorting to certiorari, which is a procedural requirement under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The Court emphasized that the doctrine of hierarchy of courts was also disregarded, as the petitioners directly filed the petition with the Supreme Court without compelling reasons.
Substantive Aspect
- The Court ruled that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in granting the WPI. The private respondent, as the highest bidder, had a clear right under R.A. No. 9184 to be awarded the contract upon compliance with the bidding requirements.
- The cancellation of the bidding process by Commissioner Lina and Director Syquia lacked justifiable grounds under Section 41(c) of R.A. No. 9184. The reasons provided were arbitrary and not supported by evidence, causing unfairness and injustice to the private respondent.
- The Court also noted the urgency of preserving the status quo, as the cancellation would undermine the private respondent’s efforts and delay the Philippines’ international commitments under the ASEAN Single Window Agreement.
Ratio:
- Procedural Requirements: A motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite for filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, and the doctrine of hierarchy of courts must be observed unless there are compelling reasons for direct resort to the Supreme Court.
- Substantive Rights: The head of a procuring agency may reject bids under Section 41(c) of R.A. No. 9184, but such rejection must be based on justifiable and reasonable grounds. Arbitrary cancellation of a bidding process without valid reasons constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
- Injunctive Relief: A preliminary injunction may be granted to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable injury when the applicant has a clear right, the right is being violated, and there is an urgent necessity for the writ.
- Government Procurement: Courts generally do not interfere with the discretion of government agencies in procurement processes unless there is evidence of fraud, unfairness, injustice, or grave abuse of discretion.
Conclusion:
- The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC’s Omnibus Order, ruling that the cancellation of the PNSW 2 project bidding process was arbitrary and unjustified. The case was remanded to the RTC for the resolution of the main petition.