Case Digest (G.R. No. 211737)
Facts:
Sergio R. Osmena III v. Department of Transportation and Communications Secretary Joseph Emilio A. Abaya, et al., G.R. Nos. 211737 and 214756, January 13, 2016, Supreme Court Third Division, Villarama, Jr., J., writing for the Court.
The dispute arose from the Government’s public-private partnership (PPP) project to expand and operate Mactan-Cebu International Airport (MCIA) under the Build-Operate-and-Transfer (BOT) Law (R.A. No. 6957, as amended by R.A. No. 7718). The Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), through the Mactan‑Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) and its Pre‑qualification, Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC), published pre‑qualification and bidding documents (ITPB/ITB) in December 2012 and later conducted pre‑qualification and bidding. The PBAC set legal, technical and financial criteria and required supporting auditor and “no unsatisfactory performance” certifications under prescribed Annexes.
Seven consortia submitted bids, which PBAC ranked by the premium offered the government. On April 3, 2014, PBAC recommended the GMR Infrastructure & Megawide Consortium (later GMR‑Megawide / GMCAC) as the winning bidder after post‑qualification, and on April 4 the DOTC/MCIAA issued a Notice of Award directing post‑award compliance. The consortium paid the Php14.404 billion premium and on April 22 executed the Concession Agreement; operations were turned over on November 1, 2014.
On April 3–7, 2014, Senator Sergio R. Osmena III filed a petition (G.R. No. 211737) for certiorari and prohibition with application for a temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction, alleging PBAC committed grave abuse by (a) failing to disqualify GMR‑Megawide for violating a Conflict of Interest rule (because of common directorships with another bidder), (b) ignoring evidence of GMR’s poor financial health and unsatisfactory performance (India and Maldives projects), and (c) showing undue bias. On October 31, 2014, Business for Progress Movement (BPM) through Medardo C. Deacosta, Jr. filed G.R. No. 214756 seeking injunctive relief to stop the turnover and an alleged increase in terminal fees that would harm frequent‑traveler members.
Respondents (DOTC, MCIAA, PBAC, GMR Infrastructure, Ltd., Megawide Construction Corporation, and later GMR‑Megawide Cebu Airport Corp.) filed comments and demonstrated that PBAC had investigated the flagged issues during post‑qualification, required certifications (including a sworn certification addressing the alleged conflict), examined financial submissions per QD‑8 and the Bid Letter, and relied on technical clarifications (Special Bid Bulletins) that interpreted “direct involvement” as active participation in bid deliberations and decision‑making. PBAC concluded neither unsatisfactory performance nor conflict of interest existed that would warrant disqualification.
The petitions were consolidated and brought directly to the Supreme Court as petitions for certiorari/prohibition and injunction (Rule 65...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Do petitioners have legal standing to seek judicial relief in these public actions?
- May the Supreme Court relax the principle of hierarchy of courts and exercise original jurisdiction in this case?
- Did the PBAC and DOTC commit grave abuse of discretion in finding the GMR‑Megawide Consortium a qualified bidder (i.e., were there Conflict of Interest violations, unsatisfactory performance, or financial incapacity that required disqualification)?
- Is the increase in terminal/passenger service charges implemented by the concessionaire lawful?
- Are petitioners entitled to injunctive relief (temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction) to rest...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)