Case Digest (G.R. No. 217158)
Facts:
Gios‑Samar, Inc., represented by its Chairperson Gerardo M. Malinao, petitioner, v. Department of Transportation and Communications and Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines, G.R. No. 217158, March 12, 2019, Supreme Court En Banc, Jardeleza, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Gios‑Samar, Inc. (a nongovernmental organization of subsistence farmers and fisherfolk) filed an original petition for prohibition on March 27, 2015, challenging the constitutionality of the bundling of six airport infrastructure projects announced by the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) and the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP) and seeking to enjoin the bidding. The DOTC/CAAP had posted an Invitation to Pre‑qualify and Bid (December 15, 2014) for airport development, operations and maintenance covering Bacolod‑Silay, Davao, Iloilo, Laguindingan, New Bohol (Panglao) and Puerto Princesa with a total estimated cost of P116.23 billion; subsequent Instructions to Prospective Bidders (March 10, 2015) bundled the projects into two bundles (Bundle 1: Bacolod‑Silay and Iloilo; Bundle 2: Davao, Laguindingan and New Bohol), leaving Puerto Princesa unbundled.
Petitioner contended that bundling: (a) violated the constitutional prohibitions against anti‑dummy and denied the public opportunity to invest in public utilities (Art. XII, Sec. 11); (b) created monopolies/combination in restraint of trade (Art. XII, Sec. 19); (c) unduly restrained trade by excluding medium‑sized Filipino firms; (d) was done without legal authority and constituted grave abuse of discretion by the PBAC; and (e) would enable financially dubious entities to access the projects. Petitioner sought injunctive relief (TRO/preliminary injunction) and invoked the “transcendental importance” doctrine and taxpayer standing to justify direct recourse to the Supreme Court.
DOTC and CAAP answered that the petition was premature, raised non‑justiciable or speculative claims, suffered from lack of standing, and improperly bypassed the hierarchy of courts; the CAAP emphasized that factua...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May petitioner properly invoke the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction and have the petition for prohibition heard directly by the Court despite the presence of factual issues (i.e., does the doctrine of hierarchy of courts bar direct recourse here)?
- Does the bundling of the airport projects violate the constitutional prohibition on monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade (Art. XII, Sec. 19)?
- Does bundling violate the Anti‑Dummy Law (Commonwealth Act No. 108) or the Filipino ownership requirement of Art. XII, Sec. 11?
- Did the PBAC commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to la...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)