G.R. No. 217158 - Gios-Samar, Inc. vs. Department of Transportation and Communications

GIOS-SAMAR, Inc., represented by its Chairperson Gerardo M. Malinao (“Petitioner”), a non-governmental organization of subsistence farmers and fisherfolk from Samar, filed an original petition for prohibition before the Supreme Court on March 27, 2015.
Respondents are the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) and its attached agency, the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP).

On December 15, 2014, respondents posted an Invitation to Pre-qualify and Bid for airport development, operations, and maintenance of six regional airports, with a total project cost of P116.23 billion.
On March 10, 2015, respondents issued Instructions to Prospective Bidders, grouping the six airports into two bundles:

Bundling violates Section 11, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution (anti-dummy and equal-opportunity clauses), as it allegedly allows questionable companies to enter via consortiums.
Bundling contravenes Section 19, Article XII of the Constitution (anti-monopoly and anti-restraint of trade), purportedly creating market combinations beyond the capability of medium-sized Filipino firms.
Petitioner asserted grave abuse of discretion by the Pre-Qualification, Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) in bundling without legal authority.
Petitioner claimed irreparable injury to the public treasury, seeking a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction.

DOTC argued the petition was premature (no bidding yet), lacked standing, raised speculative constitutional violations, and that bundling did not violate anti-monopoly or anti-dummy provisions.
CAAP contended petitioner bypassed the hierarchy of courts, should have sued first in the trial court, and lacked cause of action and authority to sue.

Urged that waiting for bidding would moot the relief, noting five groups were already pre-qualified.
Reiterated transcendental importance and asserted legal standing through its representative.

Whether the petition for prohibition, filed directly in the Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction, was proper despite the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.

Violating the anti-dummy and equal-opportunity clause (Section 11, Art. XII).
Creating a monopoly or combination in restraint of trade (Section 19, Art. XII).
Constituting grave abuse of discretion by the PBAC.
Perpetrating undue restraint of trade and injuring medium-sized Filipino companies.