G.R. No. 218628 - Evergreen Manufacturing Corp. vs. Republic

Philco Aero, Inc. (petitioner) filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or TRO against several respondents including the Department of Transportation (DOTr) Secretary Arthur P. Tugade, Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA), Vivencio B. Dizon, and Megawide Construction Corp. together with GMR Infrastructure Ltd. (doing business as joint venturers under the name and style of Megawide-GMR).
The petitioner contended that the award of the contract for the DMIA Passenger Terminal 2 was illegal and violative of its due process rights.

The Clark International Airport Corporation (CIAC) was established under Executive Order No. 192, Series of 1994, to operate and manage the Clark Aviation Complex and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Clark Development Corporation.
CIAC operates under policies, rules, and regulations set by the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA)/CDC.

In 2008, CIAC invited qualified entities to participate in the design, financing, construction, and operation of the Diosdado Macapagal International Airport (DMIA) Passenger Terminal 2.
Petitioner submitted its unsolicited proposal to CIAC and was informed that detailed negotiations would be conducted to assess both its technical and financial aspects.
A series of negotiations ensued, with CIAC’s approval on July 31, 2010, to advance the proposal to Stage Two of the 2008 Joint Ventures Guidelines issued by the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA).
Negotiations continued until July 19, 2011, when CIAC formally notified petitioner of its intent to cease further discussions.

Following the termination of negotiations with the petitioner, the project was awarded to Megawide Construction Corp. and GMR Infrastructure Ltd. (joint venturers operating under the name Megawide-GMR) by the DOTr and BCDA.
Petitioner, aggrieved by the award, argued that its due process right was violated, claiming that its proposal had already been partially accepted and formally negotiated.

The case extensively references the Guidelines and Procedures for Entering into Joint Venture Agreements between Government and Private Entities, particularly detailing a three-stage process: submission of an unsolicited proposal (Stage One), detailed negotiations (Stage Two), and a competitive challenge (Stage Three).
Judicial precedents such as SM Land, Inc. v. Bases Conversion and Development Authority were cited to illustrate when termination of negotiations may be permitted under the guidelines.
The petition also addresses the applicability of Republic Act No. 8975, which vests jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court to issue injunctions against government projects under certain conditions.

The proper application and adherence to the Joint Venture Guidelines, particularly whether the government’s withdrawal from negotiations at Stage Two was justified.
Whether the petitioner had acquired any enforceable right during the negotiation process that would preclude the termination by CIAC.