Title
Hutchison Ports Phil. Ltd. vs. Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority
Case
G.R. No. 131367
Decision Date
Aug 31, 2000
SBMA awarded HPPL a port contract, but the President ordered a rebidding. HPPL sued, but the Supreme Court ruled the President acted within authority, and HPPL, unlicensed, lacked capacity to sue.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 131367)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Invitation to bid and pre-qualification (February–July 1996)
    • On February 12, 1996, SBMA published an invitation for private sector development and operation of a modern marine container terminal in Subic Bay Freeport Zone.
    • Seven bidders responded; SBMA-TEC pre-qualified three: ICTSI; a consortium of RPSI and HPC Hamburg Port Consulting; and HPPL representing a consortium with Guoco Holdings and Unicol Management.
    • SBMA-PBAC required formal bid submissions by July 1, 1996; three World Bank-recommended international consultants and Davis, Langdon & Seah Philippines evaluated the business plans, unanimously finding HPPL’s plan superior.
  • Protests, financial bids, and initial award (July–August 1996)
    • Prior to opening sealed royalty-fee bids, RPSI protested ICTSI’s participation, citing EO 212 and DOTC Order 95-863; HPPL joined the protest alleging conflict of interest due to ICTSI’s Manila port operations.
    • Financial bids opened under advisement: ICTSI US$57.80/TEU; HPPL US$20.50/TEU; RPSI US$15.08/TEU.
    • On August 15, 1996, SBMA-PBAC resolved to reject ICTSI’s bid for non-compliance and declared HPPL the winning bidder, directing immediate negotiations with HPPL.
  • Appeals and Presidential intervention (August 1996–January 1997)
    • ICTSI appealed to SBMA Board and Office of the President.
    • On August 30, 1996, Presidential Legal Counsel Cayetano recommended reinstatement of ICTSI’s bid and re-evaluation of financial proposals with COA participation; President Ramos approved.
    • SBMA Board, with COA concurrence, re-evaluated and on September 19, 1996 reconfirmed HPPL as winning bidder; submitted results to the President on September 24.
    • Executive Secretary Torres later recommended a rebidding; the Office of the President directed SBMA Board to refrain from signing with HPPL and to conduct a rebid.
  • Ombudsman clearance and trial court proceedings (April 1997–November 1997)
    • On April 16, 1997, the Office of the Ombudsman dismissed graft complaints against SBMA-PBAC members, finding no abuse of discretion in awarding to HPPL.
    • On July 7, 1997, HPPL filed specific performance and damages suit vs. SBMA in RTC Olongapo (Civil Case No. 243-O-97), alleging binding contract and seeking injunction against rebidding.
    • ICTSI, RPSI, and the Office of the President intervened. SBMA sent rebid notices on August 4, 1997; pre-bid conference minutes dated October 20 set winner announcement for December 5, 1997.
    • HPPL’s motion for status quo injunction was denied by RTC on November 3, 1997, citing Section 21 of R.A. 7227 forbidding injunctions except by the Supreme Court.
  • Supreme Court petition and TRO (December 1997)
    • HPPL filed petition for prohibitory injunction in the Supreme Court to enjoin SBMA’s rebidding pending RTC decision.
    • On December 3, 1997, SC granted temporary restraining order enjoining SBMA from declaring any winner or taking steps toward rebidding.

Issues:

  • Whether HPPL has a clear and unmistakable right to be declared the final winning bidder such that SBMA can be compelled to negotiate a concession contract.
  • Whether HPPL suffered a material and substantial invasion of its rights by the Presidential directive to rebid and SBMA’s compliance therewith.
  • Whether there is an urgent and permanent necessity for injunctive relief to prevent serious damage to HPPL.
  • Whether the Office of the President validly exercised its supervisory authority over SBMA by setting aside the award and ordering a rebid.
  • Whether foreign corporation HPPL, unlicensed to do business in the Philippines, has legal capacity to invoke Philippine courts.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.