Title
Bureau Veritas vs. Office of the President
Case
G.R. No. 101678
Decision Date
Feb 3, 1992
The court upheld the government's decision to award the inspection services contract to Societe Generale de Surveillance S.A. over Bureau Veritas.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 101678)

Facts:

  • Bureau Veritas, represented by Theodor H. Hunermann, filed a petition against multiple respondents, including the Office of the President and the Secretary of Finance.
  • The petition, submitted on February 3, 1992, challenged the Agreement for Comprehensive Import Supervision Scheme (CISS) with Societe Generale de Surveillance S.A. (SGS) and Memorandum Order No. 391.
  • The CISS was established on February 13, 1986, to mandate pre-shipment inspections of imports to prevent undervaluation and misdeclaration.
  • Initially covering three Asian countries, the CISS was later expanded to include more.
  • In August 1990, prior to SGS's contract expiration, an invitation for pre-qualification and bidding for inspection services was published.
  • Bureau Veritas and SGS were among four bidders; bids were opened on November 6, 1990.
  • Discrepancies in tax rates were noted during the evaluation, with Bureau Veritas initially not specifying a tax rate but later attempting to revise its fees.
  • On August 16, 1991, SGS was awarded the contract, prompting Bureau Veritas to challenge the award, alleging grave abuse of discretion.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court dismissed Bureau Veritas's petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion in awarding the CISS contract to SGS.
  • The Court upheld the decision to change the evaluation of bids from "inclusive" to "ex...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Court determined that the change in evaluation criteria by the CISS Subcommittee was necessary for fair bid comparison due to varying tax assumptions.
  • All bidders, including Bureau Veritas, had agreed to the net basis evaluation, making Bureau...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.