G.R. No. 178799 - 1st United Constructors Corp. vs. Poro Point Management Corp.

On January 26, 2007, PPMC approved the Contract for the Upgrading of the San Fernando Airport Project, Phase I.
The SBAC issued invitations to reputable contractors to pre-qualify, resulting in three firms—FUCC, C.M. Pancho Construction, Inc., and EEI-New Kanlaon Construction, Inc. JV—meeting the initial criteria.
Disqualification occurred for two bidders:

C.M. Pancho was disqualified for not meeting the required minimum years of experience in airport projects.
EEI-New Kanlaon JV was disqualified for failing to submit a special license to bid as required for joint ventures.

FUCC’s technical proposal was given a “failed” mark due to omissions including the lack of the automated weather observation system (AWOS) and unsigned narrative construction method and tax return pages.

FUCC filed a protest with the PPMC challenging the decision to rate its bid as “failed.”
On March 26, 2007, Atty. Felix S. Racadio, acting as PPMC Head, resolved the protest:

The protest was dismissed, with the determination that no reversible error occurred in the SBAC’s evaluation.
The decision stressed the presumption of regularity in official acts and placed the burden of proving wrong on FUCC, which failed to meet this burden.
The protest fee of P4,721,000.00 was declared non-refundable and forfeited in favor of PPMC.

Following the protest dismissal, SBAC scheduled a re-bidding for the project.
The RTC initially issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to enjoin the re-bidding; however, the TRO was lifted pursuant to Section 3 of RA No. 8975, which stipulates that no court, except the Supreme Court, may issue such orders regarding government infrastructure projects.
The re-bidding proceeded on May 8, 2007, resulting in the award of the project to Satrap Construction Company, Inc. (SCCI).
The project contract was executed and supported by a Notice to Proceed served on May 29, 2007.

Dissatisfied with the re-bidding and award, FUCC filed an amended petition with the RTC seeking to enjoin the implementation of the project.
The petition was eventually dismissed by the RTC for lack of jurisdiction and subsequently confirmed by a notice of dismissal.
Claiming no other appeal or adequate remedy, FUCC then directly appealed to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari and for the issuance of a TRO.
The petition sought multiple remedies, including the annulment of the re-bidding, Notice of Award, Contract execution, and the issuance of orders to reconsider FUCC’s “failed” rating.

The Government Procurement Reform Act (RA No. 9184) and its IRR outline strict procedures for filing protests and resolving procurement disputes.
FUCC’s petition was filed beyond the prescribed 60-day period after receipt of the adverse decision (received on March 27, 2007, but filed on July 30, 2007).
The petition also bypassed the proper venue by directly invoking the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction rather than exhausting the remedies available in the lower courts, as provided by Section 58 of RA No. 9184 and the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Whether the petition for certiorari and the prayer for a permanent injunction were correctly filed directly with the Supreme Court, bypassing the lower courts.
Whether the filing was timely, given that FUCC admitted to receiving the PPMC decision on March 27, 2007 but only filed on July 30, 2007.

Whether SBAC and PPMC committed grave abuse of discretion in rating FUCC’s bid as “failed” and subsequently in disqualifying it.
Whether the re-bidding process and award to SCCI were tainted by unfairness, collusion, or any form of irregularity.

Whether the relief sought—including the issuance of a TRO and the annulment of the re-bidding and contract award—fall within the Court’s original or appellate jurisdiction, especially in light of RA No. 8975’s prohibition against TROs and preliminaries in government procurement cases.

Whether FUCC was able to substantiate its allegations of collusion, fraud, or any misconduct on the part of SBAC, PPMC, or SCCI that would warrant judicial intervention.