Case Digest (G.R. No. 203655)
Facts:
SM Land, Inc. v. Bases Conversion and Development Authority, G.R. No. 203655, August 13, 2014, Supreme Court Third Division, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner SM Land, Inc. (SMLI) submitted an unsolicited proposal to respondent Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) for the development of BCDA’s 33.1-hectare Bonifacio South Property. SMLI filed its first unsolicited proposal on December 14, 2009 and thereafter submitted revised offers (notably proposals on which guaranteed secured payments rose to a proposed PhP 22.6 billion by May 4, 2010). The BCDA created a Joint Venture Selection Committee (JV‑SC), which recommended acceptance; by letter dated May 12, 2010 BCDA communicated acceptance of SMLI’s unsolicited proposal while clarifying that the acceptance merely authorized detailed negotiations and did not bind BCDA to conclude a joint venture.
After detailed negotiations, the parties signed a Certification of Successful Negotiations on August 6, 2010, whereby BCDA and SMLI agreed to subject SMLI’s Original Proposal to the Competitive Challenge under Annex C of the NEDA JV Guidelines and to commence solicitation for comparative proposals. BCDA issued Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Competitive Challenge; SMLI posted the required proposal security and participated in the pre‑eligibility conference (September 3, 2010). Publication and submission deadlines were repeatedly postponed by several Supplemental Notices until the process stalled.
On August 6, 2012 BCDA issued Supplemental Notice No. 5 terminating the Competitive Challenge and announcing that BCDA would instead subject the property to public bidding; BCDA returned SMLI’s proposal security by check. BCDA’s memorandum to the Office of the President had earlier recommended termination of the Competitive Challenge on the ground that SMLI’s revised terms were allegedly disadvantageous to the government. SMLI filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus under Rule 65 (with prayer for injunctive relief) before this Court to annul...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did BCDA gravely abuse its discretion in issuing Supplemental Notice No. 5, thereby terminating the Competitive Challenge and subjecting the development to public bidding?
- Was SMLI entitled to a completed Competitive Challenge under the NEDA JV Guidelines and the Certification of Successful Negotiations, and did the reservation clause in the TOR (Article VIII) authorize BCDA to cancel th...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)