G.R. No. L-28360 - C and C Commercial Corp. vs. Menor

C & C Commercial Corporation sought to participate in a public bidding for the supply of asbestos cement pressure pipes to the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NAWASA).
Despite having a pending tax case and lacking a tax clearance certificate, the corporation was allowed to participate based on a prior decision by Judge Cloribel of the Court of First Instance of Manila dated March 1, 1967, in Civil Case No. 66750.
The decision permitted participation as a qualified bidder, effectively granting a mandamus relief against NAWASA officials.

Issued on June 26, 1967, the order mandated that any person or juridical entity with pending tax cases before the Bureau of Internal Revenue or Customs—or with criminal or civil cases related to non-payment of taxes—withhold participation in public bidding unless they secured a tax clearance certificate.
The order further required the submission of additional documents such as the certified copy of the BIR Letter of Confirmation and the BIR tax clearance form as prerequisites for bidding and execution of contracts with government entities.

C & C Commercial Corporation, after being qualified, submitted its bid and emerged as the lowest bidder on May 18, 1967.
On July 25, 1967, Acting General Manager Antonio C. Menor of NAWASA demanded that the corporation comply with the provisions of Administrative Order No. 66 by submitting a tax clearance certificate.
In response, C & C Commercial Corporation filed a motion in Civil Case No. 66750 requesting that NAWASA be compelled to award the contract, restrain NAWASA from contracting with another bidder, and show cause for potential contempt of court.

Judge Cloribel granted the motion on August 23, 1967, ordering NAWASA officials to award the contract to C & C Commercial Corporation within ten days.
The decision and its record were later approved on appeal by Judge Cloribel on November 9, 1967.
Amid fears of delay and potential award to another bidder, C & C Commercial Corporation initiated another petition for mandamus in Civil Case No. 71346 before Judge Francisco Geronimo, which was denied on January 8, 1968, on the grounds that a preliminary injunction would be against public interest.
Notwithstanding the denial, NAWASA eventually awarded the contract to Regal Trading Corporation, and subsequent actions ensued—including an ex parte motion by C & C Commercial Corporation in this Court for an injunction, and a restraining order issued by Judge Pedro Navarro in Civil Case No. 10572.

The core conflict involved whether the award of the contract was a matter properly determined by the earlier mandamus order or if the subsequent promulgation of Administrative Order No. 66—mandating tax clearance—provided sufficient grounds for NAWASA to refuse the award to C & C Commercial Corporation.
The ultimate legal controversy centered on the authority of Judge Cloribel to extend his earlier order to include awarding the contract, thereby contravening the requirements set forth by the presidential order.

Whether Judge Cloribel possessed the jurisdiction and authority to extend his prior mandamus order, which allowed qualification for bidding, to include the direct award of the contract.
Whether such an extension amounted to an impermissible amendment of a final and executed judgment.

Whether the subject matter of awarding the contract was properly implicit in the original order that only confirmed the qualification of C & C Commercial Corporation as a bidder.
Whether the term “lowest bidder” should necessarily confer the right to the award of the contract or if the awarding was discretionary under NAWASA’s reserved power to reject bids.

Whether Administrative Order No. 66, issued after the mandamus judgment had become final and executory, should be applied to disqualify C & C Commercial Corporation despite its prior qualification.
Whether the provisions of AO No. 66 should have a retroactive effect on the bidding process and the subsequent contract award.

Whether the interference by the administrative order in a final judicial decision violates the established doctrine of judicial finality.
Whether the lower court’s order should be given precedence over newly promulgated administrative rules regarding government contracting.