Case Summary (G.R. No. 174202)
Petitioner
Dynamic Builders & Construction Co. (Phil.), Inc., the lowest calculated bidder, whose proposal was declared “not substantially responsive” due to alleged deficiencies in financial contracting capability.
Respondents
• Public respondents administered and evaluated the bidding process under World Bank–sponsored LOGOFIND guidelines and R.A. No. 9184 (2003 Government Procurement Reform Act).
• Private respondent HLJ Construction and Enterprise was ultimately awarded the contract.
Key Dates
• December 28, 2005 – Invitation to bid published
• January 17, 2006 – Pre-bid conference (six attendees)
• January 31, 2006 – Four bids opened; Dynamic’s bid lowest but later disqualified
• March 27, 2006 – BAC Resolution No. 6 recommends HLJ for award
• April 18, 2006 – World Bank “No Objection” received
• April 21, 2006 – BAC Resolution No. 7 affirms award to HLJ
• April 25/May 11, 2006 – Dynamic notified of disqualification (bid not substantially responsive)
• May 15–22, 2006 – Reconsideration requested and denied by BAC
• June 6–30, 2006 – Formal protest filed with Mayor Presbitero; dismissed by Decision (June 12) and Resolution (June 30)
• September 4–6, 2006 – Concurrent petitions filed: certiorari in RTC Bago City (Civil Case No. 1459) and prohibition/injunction in the Supreme Court
• September 18, 2006 – Supreme Court issues status quo order
• December 13, 2006 – Petitioner’s contempt petition filed
• April 7, 2015 – Decision of the Supreme Court
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (due process, equal protection)
• Republic Act No. 9184 (2003) Art. XVII, Sec. 58 – Procuring entity protest procedures; certiorari remedy before RTC; reservation of SC’s injunctive jurisdiction
• Republic Act No. 8975 (2000) – Prohibition on lower‐court injunctive relief in government infrastructure projects, with SC exception and extreme-urgency exception
• Presidential Decree No. 1818 (1981) – Original ban on injunctions in infrastructure and natural‐resource projects
• Rules of Court, Rule 65 – Special civil actions (certiorari, prohibition, mandamus)
• Doctrines on splitting cause of action, multiplicity of suits, forum shopping, and hierarchy of courts
Factual Background
The Municipality of Valladolid, Negros Occidental, conducting a World Bank–assisted local infrastructure project, invited bids for a seawall. After evaluation, Dynamic’s bid, though lowest, was rejected for lack of financial capacity. HLJ’s higher bid was recommended, approved by the mayor, and implemented. Dynamic exhausted administrative remedies and filed a protest with the mayor, which was dismissed and whose reconsideration was denied.
Procedural Posture
Petitioner filed (1) a Rule 65 certiorari petition in the RTC of Bago City challenging the mayor’s protest decision, and (2) a petition for prohibition with application for temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction in the Supreme Court to enjoin enforcement of those same administrative rulings. The SC granted status quo, respondents continued construction, and Dynamic later filed a contempt petition.
Issues Presented
- Whether simultaneous resort to certiorari before the RTC and prohibition/injunctive relief before the Supreme Court violated prohibitions on splitting causes of action, multiplicity of suits, forum shopping, and the hierarchy of courts.
- Whether R.A. 9184, Sec. 58, in relation to R.A. 8975 and P.D. 1818, permits RTCs to issue provisional injunctive relief against local government infrastructure projects under specified conditions.
- Whether respondents disobeyed the SC’s status quo order by continuing project works.
Analysis of Remedies and Jurisdiction
• Splitting a single cause of action by filing two petitions in two forums violates Rule 2, Sec. 3; Rule 7, Sec. 5; and forum-shopping prohibitions.
• Article XVII, Sec. 58 of R.A. 9184 contemplates either a Rule 65 action in the RTC or a direct petition to the SC in proper cases—not both concurrently.
• The SC’s original jurisdiction over special writs must be sparingly exercised and reserved for compelling circumstances.
Prohibition and Injunctive Relief Principles
• Prohibition is an extraordinary preventive remedy to enjoin further proceedings when there is lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.
• Rule 65 requires absence of plain, speedy, adequate remedy and clear right to relief.
• R.A. 8975 bars all courts except the SC from issuing provisional injunctive reliefs against national government projects, except in cases of extreme urgency involving a constitutional issue.
• Lower courts may issue injunctions only if:
- There are compelling, substantial constitutional violations;
- A clear right in esse exists;
- There is a need to prevent grav
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 174202)
Parties and Subject Matter
- Petitioner: Dynamic Builders & Construction Co. (Phil.), Inc.
- Public Respondents: Hon. Ricardo P. Presbitero, Jr. (Mayor and Head of Procuring Unit, Municipality of Valladolid, Negros Occidental) and the Municipality’s Bids and Awards Committee (BAC)
- Private Respondent: Henry L. Jordan and/or HLJ Construction and Enterprise
- Project at issue: “Construction Shoreline Protection Project” – a 1,050‐lineal‐meter rubble concrete seawall along the shoreline of Municipality of Valladolid
Bidding Process and Award
- December 28, 2005: Invitation to bid published by the BAC under LOGOFIND–World Bank guidelines
- January 17, 2006: Pre‐bid conference attended by six prospective contractors including Dynamic Builders
- January 31, 2006: Three bidders withdrew; four bids were opened
- Bid amounts:
- Mig‐wells Const Corp: ₱35,561,015.33 (highest)
- ADP Const & Supply: ₱34,778,496.72 (third lowest)
- HLJ Const & Ent.: ₱31,922,420.27 (second lowest)
- Dynamic Builders: ₱29,750,000.00 (lowest)
- March 27, 2006: BAC Resolution No. 6 recommends award to HLJ Construction and Enterprise
- April 18, 2006: World Bank “No Objection” to proceed with award
- April 21, 2006: BAC Resolution No. 7 formally awards contract to HLJ for ₱31,922,420.37
Post‐Award Proceedings
- April 25, 2006: BAC chair informs Dynamic Builders that its bid is “not substantially responsive”
- May 5, 2006: Dynamic Builders’ request for bid documents denied under LOGOFIND confidentiality rule
- May 15 and 22, 2006: Request for reconsideration denied; post‐evaluation shows Dynamic Builders’ negative financial capacity (₱64,579,119.13) versus minimum ₱13,000,000.00
- June 6, 2006: Dynamic Builders protests to Mayor Presbitero
- June 12 and 30, 2006: Mayor Presbitero dismisses protest and denies reconsideration based on grave abuse of discretion finding
Petitioner’s Dual Remedies and Contentions
- September 4, 2006:
- Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 filed in RTC, Bago City (Civil Case No. 1459) challenging Mayor’s Decision and Resolution
- Petition for Prohibition with application for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction filed in the Supreme Court
- Main arguments:
- RA 9184, Art. XVII § 58 allows simultaneous petition for certiorari in RTC and injunctive relief in the Supreme Court under RA 8975/PD 1818
- J.V. Lagon dictum grants RTC injunctive power only in extreme constitutional urgency
- HLJ already commenced construction and obtained a 15% advance; immediate injunctive relief needed to avoid mootness and due‐process/equal‐protection violations
- Reliefs prayed: TRO or preliminary injunction in the Supreme Court; writ of prohibition; permanent injunction pending RTC proceedings; other just and equitable reliefs
Respondents’ Contentions
- Public respondents:
- Petitioner engaged in splitting cause of action, multiplicity of suits, forum shopping;