Case Digest (G.R. No. 182042)
Facts:
Thunder Security and Investigation Agency/Lourdes M. Lasala v. National Food Authority (Region I) and NFA Regional Bids and Awards Committee (Region I), G.R. No. 182042, July 27, 2011, First Division, Villarama, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Thunder Security and Investigation Agency, sole proprietorship of Lourdes M. Lasala (petitioner), contracted with respondent National Food Authority (NFA), Region I to provide security services from September 15, 2002 to September 15, 2003. After R.A. No. 9184 took effect (enacted January 10, 2003; effective January 26, 2003), the NFA published an Invitation to Apply for Eligibility and to Bid on May 11 and 18, 2003 for security services to follow the expiring contract.
Petitioner paid a bidding fee but was later informed on June 26, 2003 that its application to bid was rejected for failure to submit required documents. Petitioner protested, arguing that bidding should not proceed until the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9184 were promulgated. Respondents maintained that, pending the IRR, they would be guided by E.O. No. 40 insofar as consistent with R.A. No. 9184 pursuant to instructions from the NFA Administrator.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Prohibition and Preliminary Injunction with a prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 66, San Fernando City, which issued a TRO on August 8, 2003 and, by Order dated August 27, 2003, granted a writ of preliminary injunction restraining respondents from awarding the contract or terminating petitioner’s services. The RTC found the NFA-RBAC composition and orders void because the IRR had not yet been promulgated and noted the absence of private-sector observers at the bidding. Respondents moved for reconsideration, presenting Minutes of the Meeting showing three observers and pointing out that Part A of the IRR (IRR-A) took effect on October 8, 2003; the RTC denied the reconsideration by Order of December 1, 2005.
Respondents petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) under Rule 65 for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in issuing injunctive relief. The CA, in a Decision dated July 18, 2007 (CA‑G.R. SP No. 93642, penned by Associate Justice Punzalan Castillo), granted the petition and set aside the RTC Orders, concluding that the RTC had no basis for the preliminary injunction, noting that IRR‑A later took effect and that the Minutes showed three observers were present; the CA also observed that petitioner’s right to participate in the bidding was dubious for failure to submit required documents. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in the CA was denied on March 5, 2008.
Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to this Court, raising (1) whether the CA erred in holding res...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in holding that respondents did not err in applying E.O. No. 40 in the conduct of the bidding?
- Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in finding that there was no irregularity attending the questioned bidding?
- Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in setting aside the RTC Orders that granted...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)