Case Digest (G.R. No. 169304)
Facts:
The Department of Health, Secretary Manuel M. Dayrit, Usec. Ma. Margarita Galon and Usec. Antonio M. Lopez v. Phil. Pharmawealth, Inc., G.R. No. 169304, March 13, 2007, Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.Phil. Pharmawealth, Inc. (respondent) is a domestic pharmaceutical manufacturer and supplier doing business with government hospitals. Petitioners are the Department of Health (DOH) and its officials named in their official capacities (Secretaries and Undersecretaries). The dispute arose from respondent’s failure to be awarded a DOH procurement contract for Penicillin G Benzathine after it was not listed among DOH-accredited products.
In 1998 the DOH issued Administrative Order No. 27, s. 1998 setting guidelines on accreditation of government suppliers; A.O. No. 10, s. 2000 later amended the accreditation process and provided that “Only products accredited by the Committee shall be allowed to be procured by the DOH.” On May 9 and May 29, 2000, respondent sought inclusion of additional items, including Penicillin G Benzathine, in its list of accredited products. Processing of such requests was scheduled to conclude by September 2000, but the DOH had not acted on respondent’s request by the time an Invitation for Bids (IFB) for 1.2 million vials of Penicillin G Benzathine was issued in September 2000.
Respondent nonetheless submitted a bid for the October 11, 2000 bidding and was the low bidder. Because respondent’s Penicillin G Benzathine product remained unaccredited, the DOH awarded the contract to Cathay/YSS Laboratories (YSS). Respondent filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City for injunction, mandamus and damages, praying among other things for nullification of the award and that DOH and the named officials declare respondent the lowest compliant bidder and award the contract to it.
Petitioners moved to dismiss before the RTC, invoking state immunity from suit and also challenging the authority of respondent’s representative to sue. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss by Order of December 8, 2003, and denied reconsideration by Order dated March 15, 2004. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). In CA-G.R. SP No. 84457 the CA, in a Decision dated May 12, 2005, affirmed ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the Court of Appeals correct in denying petitioners’ motion to dismiss on the ground of state immunity — i.e., is the suit barred as a suit against the State?
- May the individual petitioners be sued personally for damages for acts alleged to have been done in their official capacities (i.e., are the individual officials immune from ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)