Case Digest (G.R. No. 131367) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
On February 12, 1996, the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA), through its Pre-qualification, Bids and Awards Committee (SBMA-PBAC), invited private entities to bid for the development and operation of a modern container terminal in the Subic Bay Freeport Zone. Of seven respondents, three passed the pre-qualification stage: International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI); a consortium of Royal Port Services, Inc. (RPSI) and HPC Hamburg Port Consulting GMBH; and Hutchison Ports Philippines Limited (HPPL), representing a consortium with Guoco Holdings (Phils.), Inc. and Unicol Management Services, Inc. Three internationally recognized consultants engaged by SBMA unanimously ranked HPPL’s business plan as superior. Before financial bids were opened, RPSI protested that ICTSI was barred by Executive Order No. 212 and DOTC Order 95-863 from operating a second port, prompting SBMA-PBAC to proceed with the opening “under advisement.” The royalty bids were: ICTSI at US$57.80 Case Digest (G.R. No. 131367) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
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)