Case Digest (G.R. No. 210805)
Facts:
Daisy Joy Rojallo Cervantes et al. v. H.E. Benigno Simeon Aquino III et al., G.R. No. 210805, May 11, 2021, the Supreme Court En Banc, Hernando, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners comprised POC patients and employees, health-allied professionals, and several party-list and district representatives; respondents were national officials (including the Secretary of Health and the NEDA Chairperson) and the private Consortium of Megawide Construction Corporation and World Citi Medical Center (represented by Manuel Louie B. Ferrer). Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with application for a writ of preliminary injunction/TRO (Rule 65) seeking to annul the proposed privatization/commercialization of the Philippine Orthopedic Center (POC) and the award of the Modernization of the POC Project (MPOC Project) to the Consortium.The MPOC Project proposed a new 700‑bed specialty orthopedic hospital (design‑build‑finance‑operate‑maintain for 25 years, then transfer to the Department of Health (DOH)) to be implemented as a Build‑Operate‑Transfer (BOT) arrangement under RA 6957 as amended by RA 7718 and the national PPP program. The MPOC-PBAC issued an invitation to prequalify on November 18, 2012; a prequalification conference followed on January 28, 2013. The Consortium submitted a proposal as the sole bidder on June 4, 2013. NEDA approved the project on November 21, 2013; MPOC‑PBAC recommended award November 28, 2013; a Notice of Award issued December 9, 2013; the parties executed a BOT Agreement on March 6, 2014. Petitioners filed the present petition with the Court on February 3, 2014.
Petitioners alleged grave abuse of discretion by public respondents for effectively privatizing a government hospital and for expanding the BOT Law’s application to health services; they raised constitutional and statutory claims (including alleged violation of Section 6 of RA 1939 on charity‑bed allocation), asserted threats to employees’ security of tenure, and challenged the economic terms of the award. Respondents countered (through Comments) that petitioners lacked standing, that the suit was premature or a non‑justiciable political question, that the BOT arrangement did not transfer ownership or unlawfully contract out health services, and that the modernization would benefit patients and staff (including explanations about bed allocations and staff options).
After the petition was filed, private respondents served a Notice of Termination of the BOT Agreement on DOH dated November 10, 2015 (citing contractual provisions permitting termination if DOH failed to deliver the project site or appoint an independent consultant within specified periods), and the Consortium manifested t...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the petition moot and academic in view of the termination of the BOT Agreement?
- Did public respondents gravely abuse their discretion in entering into the MPOC Project with private re...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)