Title
Dimson Inc. vs. Local Water Utilities Administration
Case
G.R. No. 168656
Decision Date
Sep 22, 2010
In a case involving the disqualification of joint venture partners for a water supply project, the court ruled in favor of the Local Water Utilities Administration, emphasizing the importance of exhausting administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 168656)

Facts:

  • Petitioners Dimson (Manila), Inc. and PHESCO, Inc., both domestic corporations, formed a joint venture to bid for the Urdaneta Water Supply Improvement Project managed by the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA).
  • The project, valued at P113,385,979.00, involved constructing well pump stations, booster pump stations, ground reservoirs, and installing transmission and distribution pipelines.
  • The invitation to bid was published on December 10 and 18, 2004, and eight contractors, including the petitioners, submitted their proposals.
  • Petitioners' joint venture had the lowest calculated bid at P107,666,358.17.
  • On April 19, 2005, LWUA Administrator Lorenzo Jamora informed the petitioners of their post-disqualification due to a 30.4% slippage in Dimson's ongoing Santiago Water Supply and Treatment Project.
  • Petitioners contested the disqualification, arguing the slippage was not their fault and that the Santiago Project was distinct from the Urdaneta Project.
  • Despite their protest, the BAC recommended awarding the contract to the second-lowest bidder, R-II Builders, which was approved by the LWUA Board of Trustees on June 7, 2005.
  • Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, alleging grave abuse of discretion by LWUA.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court dismissed the pe...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Court emphasized the importance of exhausting administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention.
  • Under Section 58 of Republic Act No. 9184 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), court action can only be resorted to after completing the protest mechanisms outlined in the law.
  • The proper recourse for petitioners was to file a certiorari petition before the regional trial court, not the Supreme Court.
  • The Court found that the petitioners failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies, as they did not file a motion for reconsideration with the BAC before seeking relief from the head of the procuring entity.
  • Add...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.