Case Digest (G.R. No. 174202) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Dynamic Builders & Construction Co. (Phil.), Inc. v. Hon. Ricardo P. Presbitero, Jr. et al. (G.R. No. 174202, April 7, 2015), the petitioner, Dynamic Builders, participated in the January 2006 bidding for a 1,050-lineal-meter Construction Shoreline Protection Project of the Municipality of Valladolid, Negros Occidental. HLJ Construction and Enterprise submitted the second lowest bid and ultimately received the award after the World Bank-supervised LOGOFIND project director issued a “no objection” letter. Dynamic Builders was declared “not substantially responsive” due to a negative Financial Contracting Capability, and its motion for reconsideration was denied by Mayor Presbitero in a June 12, 2006 Decision and a June 30, 2006 Resolution. On September 4, 2006, Dynamic Builders filed (a) a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bago City assailing the June 2006 Decision and Resolution for grave abuse of discretion, and (b) a Petition for Case Digest (G.R. No. 174202) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- Dynamic Builders & Construction Co. (Petitioner) sought a prohibition writ with a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or preliminary injunction before the Supreme Court (SC) to enjoin the enforcement of the Mayor’s June 12, 2006 Decision and June 30, 2006 Resolution in Protest Case No. BPC-01-06, and to halt implementation of the Construction Shoreline Protection Project during the pendency of Civil Case No. 1459 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bago City, Negros Occidental.
- Simultaneously, on September 4, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the RTC assailing the same Decision and Resolution of Mayor Ricardo P. Presbitero, Jr. (Public Respondent).
- Bidding and Award of the Shoreline Project
- On December 28, 2005, Valladolid’s Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) published an invitation to bid for a 1,050-lineal-meter rubble-concrete seawall (World Bank–funded LOGOFIND project).
- Four bidders remained at bid opening (January 31, 2006):
- Dynamic Builders – P29,750,000.00 (Lowest)
- HLJ Construction and Enterprise – P31,922,420.27 (2nd Lowest)
- ADP Construction and Supply – P34,778,496.72 (3rd Lowest)
- Mig-Wells Construction Corporation – P35,561,015.33 (Highest)
- BAC Resolution No. 6 (March 27, 2006) recommended award to HLJ; World Bank “No Objection” followed (April 18); BAC Resolution No. 7 (April 21) formally awarded contract to HLJ at P31,922,420.37.
- Post-Award Proceedings
- April 25, 2006: Petitioner was informed its bid was “not substantially responsive” and was denied access to evaluation documents (citing LOGOFIND confidentiality).
- Petitioner’s requests for reconsideration (May 5 and May 15) were denied (post-evaluation revealed negative Financial Contracting Capability of P64,579,119.13 vs. minimum P13,000,000.00 required under LOGOFIND).
- Protest and Parallel Petitions
- June 6, 2006: Formal protest lodged with the Mayor; Decision of dismissal issued June 12, 2006; motion for reconsideration denied June 30, 2006.
- September 4, 2006: Petitioner filed (a) certiorari petition before RTC Bago City and (b) petition for prohibition with TRO/preliminary injunction before SC.
- September 18, 2006: SC issued status quo order.
- December 13, 2006: Petitioner filed a verified petition to cite respondents for contempt, alleging violation of the status quo order by continuing the project.
Issues:
- Procedural and Jurisdictional Questions
- Does Article XVII, Section 58 of RA 9184 permit simultaneous petitions for certiorari in the RTC and prohibition/injunctive relief in the SC?
- Did Petitioner violate the rules on splitting a cause of action, multiplicity of suits, forum shopping, and hierarchy of courts?
- Provisional Injunctive Relief for Local Infrastructure
- Do RA 9184 (Art. XVII, Sec. 58), RA 8975, and PD 1818 allow the RTC to issue TROs and preliminary injunctions against local government infrastructure projects?
- Contempt Allegation
- Did respondents violate the SC’s September 18, 2006 status quo order by continuing construction of the shoreline protection project?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)