Case Digest (G.R. No. 193796)
Facts:
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Atlanta Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 193796, July 02, 2014, Supreme Court Second Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.On October 3, 2006, Land Bank of the Philippines and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD / World Bank) executed Loan Agreement No. 4833‑PH to finance the IBRD’s Support for Strategic Local Development and Investment Project. The loan was to be disbursed to sub‑borrowers by Land Bank pursuant to Subsidiary Loan Agreements (SLAs), and the SLA with the City Government of Iligan (executed February 22, 2007) incorporated the Loan Agreement’s procurement terms — specifically the IBRD Procurement Guidelines and Schedule 4 — for procurement of civil works and goods (including PE 100 HDPE pipes and fittings).
The City of Iligan’s Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) ran a public bidding. Atlanta Industries, Inc. participated and submitted the second‑lowest bid in the first procurement round, which the BAC later declared a failure based on Land Bank’s recommendation and IBRD non‑concurrence with the Evaluation Report; Atlanta was also initially disqualified for alleged documentary defects. Atlanta protested administratively by letter and sought reconsideration but did not complete the formal protest procedures under RA 9184; instead it entered the announced re‑bidding.
Atlanta thereafter objected in writing (November 16, 2009) that the BAC’s re‑bidding documents did not conform to the Government Procurement Policy Board’s Philippine Bidding Documents (Third Edition) and allegedly violated RA 9184 and its IRR. The BAC replied at the pre‑bid conference that the project was not covered by RA 9184 or GPPB issuances and scheduled the re‑bid opening for December 14, 2009. Atlanta filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus with urgent prayer for TRO before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila (Civil Case No. 09‑122643) on December 10, 2009; its request for an ex parte 72‑hour TRO was denied and the re‑bidding proceeded on December 14, 2009 with four bidders (Atlanta, Moldex, Dong Won, Thai‑Asia/Junnie).
By Decision dated September 3, 2010, the Manila RTC (Branch 21) declared the re‑bidding null and void for having been conducted contrary to RA 9184 and its IRR, enjoined the City of Iligan and its BAC from contracting with Moldex, and held that the Ci...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Manila RTC have jurisdiction to issue the writ of prohibition and, relatedly, did Atlanta exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief?
- Whether the Subsidiary Loan Agreement (SLA) between Land Bank and the City of Iligan is an accessory to Loan Agreement No. 4833‑PH such that procurement under the SLA is governed by the IBRD Procurement Guidelines (a...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)