Title
Bureau of Customs vs. Gallegos
Case
G.R. No. 220832
Decision Date
Feb 28, 2018
The Supreme Court upheld the RTC’s injunction, ruling the cancellation of the PNSW 2 bidding process arbitrary and unjustified, violating procurement laws and the bidder’s rights.
Font Size:

Case Summary (G.R. No. 220832)

Background of the Case

  • On December 20, 2006, ASEAN member countries, including the Philippines, signed the ASW Protocol to develop National Single Windows (NSW) for trade facilitation.
  • The Philippines initiated its NSW project in phases, with Phase One completed in October 2010 and Phase Two (PNSW 2) aimed at enhancing customs processing.
  • The PNSW 2 project involved integrating existing customs systems into a single electronic platform for efficient customs transactions.
  • The Bureau of Customs (BOC) and the Department of Budget and Management-Procurement Service (DBM-PS) issued a Request for Expression of Interest (RFEI) for the PNSW 2 project, with a budget of P650 million.
  • The Joint Venture of Omniprime Marketing, Inc. and Intrasoft International, Inc. was shortlisted as the highest bidder, but the procurement process faced delays due to unnecessary interviews.

Cancellation of the Procurement Process

  • On May 6, 2015, newly appointed BOC Commissioner Alberto D. Lina requested the cancellation of the procurement process, citing Section 41(c) of the Government Procurement Reform Act (R.A. No. 9184).
  • Following this request, DBM-PS Executive Director Jose Tomas C. Syquia issued a Notice of Cancellation on May 7, 2015.
  • The Joint Venture filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus against the petitioners, seeking to annul the cancellation and continue the bidding process.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)

  • The RTC issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on July 28, 2015, and subsequently an Omnibus Order on August 24, 2015, which:
    • Denied the petitioners' Motion to Dismiss.
    • Granted the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI) against the cancellation.
    • Ordered the petitioners to continue with the procurement process and issue a Notice to Proceed to the private respondent.

Main Issue for Resolution

  • The primary issue was whether the RTC Judge, Paulino Q. Gallegos, gravely abused his discretion in issuing the Omnibus Order and the WPI.

Procedural Aspect of the Petition

  • The petitioners' failure to file a motion for reconsideration was deemed procedurally infirm, as such a motion is a prerequisite for certiorari under Rule 65.
  • The petitioners argued that their case raised purely legal questions, but failed to provide compelling reasons to bypass the motion for reconsideration requirement.
  • The direct filing of the petition in the Supreme Court disregarded the hierarchy of courts, which necessitates that lower courts be given the opportunity to correct their decisions.

Substantive Aspect of the Petition

  • Even if the direct resort to the Supreme Court was permissible, the petition was still dismissed.
  • For certiorari to be granted, it must be shown that the RTC Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion, which the petitioners failed to demonstrate.
  • The RTC had original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, and the petitioners' reliance on R.A. No. 8975 was misplaced, as the PNSW 2 project did not qualify as an "infrastructure project."

Justification for the Writ of Preliminary Injunction

  • The RTC's issuance of the WPI was justified as ...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.