Case Digest (G.R. No. 167057)
Facts:
Nerwin Industries Corporation v. PNOC-Energy Development Corporation and Ester R. Guerzon, G.R. No. 167057, April 11, 2012, Supreme Court First Division, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court.In 1999 the National Electrification Administration (NEA) invited pre-qualification and bidding for IPB No. 80 for the supply and delivery of woodpoles and crossarms for the Rural Electrification Project. After pre-qualification, four bidders (including Nerwin) were admitted to bid; Nerwin emerged as the lowest responsive bidder for all schedules and underwent pre-award inspection. NEA's Administrator recommended award to Nerwin based on responsiveness, price advantage, and capacity to supply.
On December 19, 2000 NEA's Board adopted Resolution No. 32 reducing material requirements for IPB No. 80 by 50% because of time constraints and loan closing dates, and resolved to award reduced quantities to Nerwin. Nerwin protested the reduction; competing bidders (Tri-State, Pacific Synnergy) filed complaints alleging falsified prequalification documents. The Government Corporate Counsel advised that Nerwin's eligibility stood, but NEA allegedly negotiated with other bidders, prompting Nerwin to file a complaint for specific performance with a prayer for injunction in Branch 36, RTC-Manila — an injunctive application that the RTC granted in that separate proceeding.
Meanwhile, PNOC-Energy Development Corporation (PNOC-EDC) issued Requisition No. FGJ 30904R1 inviting bids for wooden poles for its Samar (O-ILAW) project. Nerwin filed Civil Case No. 03106921 in the RTC-Manila against PNOC-EDC and Ester R. Guerzon, alleging the requisition improperly subjected items covered by IPB No. 80 to another bidding and seeking a TRO to enjoin PNOC-EDC's bidding. Respondents moved to dismiss on multiple grounds, including that the complaint sought a relief expressly prohibited by Republic Act No. 8975 (RA 8975), that the corporate president lacked authority to sue, and that the complaint violated the rule against forum shopping.
On June 27, 2003 the RTC granted a TRO; on July 30, 2003 the RTC (Branch 37) denied motions to consolidate and for reconsideration, disqualified certain defense counsel, declared defendants in default, and issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining PNOC-EDC and Guerzon from continuing the subject bidding conditioned on a P200,000 bond. Respondents moved for reconsideration and to set aside the default, but the RTC denied those motions on January 13, 2004. Respondents then filed a special civil action for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA-GR SP No. 83144), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in entertaining the complaint and issuing injunctive relief despite the statutory prohibition.
On October 22, 2004 the Court of Appeals annulled and set aside the RTC orders and dismissed Civil Case No. 03106921 for lack of merit, finding the issuance of the TRO and preliminary i...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing the case on the basis that Republic Act No. 8975 prohibits the issuance of temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions, except when issued by the Supreme Court?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ordering dismissal of the entire case on the ground that RA 8975 prohibits only preliminary injunctions but not injunction as a final remedy?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing the case notwithsta...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)