Case Summary (G.R. No. 178799)
Factual Background
On January 26, 2007, PPMC approved the contract for the project and invited reputable contractors, which included FUCC, C.M. Pancho Construction, Inc., and EEI-New Kanlaon Construction, Inc. Joint Venture (EEI-New Kanlaon JV), to pre-qualify for bidding. However, none of the submissions met the qualification criteria: C.M. Pancho was disqualified for insufficient experience in airport projects, and EEI-New Kanlaon JV was not granted a special license required for bidding as a joint venture. FUCC's bid was rated "failed" due to the absence of a required automated weather observation system (AWOS) and missing signatures from its authorized representative on essential documents.
Protest and Initial Legal Proceedings
FUCC's attempts to protest the SBAC's decision were met with a resolution from Atty. Racadio affirming the disqualification, stating no reversible error had occurred and emphasizing the presumption of regularity of official action. Following the dismissal of its protest, FUCC sought to enjoin the re-bidding process through the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of La Union. A temporary restraining order (TRO) was initially issued but lifted shortly thereafter, allowing the SBAC to proceed with the re-bidding, ultimately awarding the contract to SCCI as the lowest qualified bidder on May 8, 2007.
Petition for Certiorari
After the RTC dismissed FUCC's amended petition to enjoin the project’s implementation, FUCC filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, contending it was the only qualified contractor and that the award to SCCI posed potential threats to public welfare and safety. It sought a TRO to halt further progress on the awarded contract. However, the Supreme Court denied FUCC's request for a TRO, deeming the petition to be without merit.
Legal Framework and Procedural Issues
The case is informed by Republic Act (RA) No. 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act, which delineates the procedures for contesting the decisions of the SBAC. Protests regarding SBAC decisions must be pursued as specified within RA No. 9184, indicating that court action is only permissible after exhausting administrative remedies. FUCC failed to follow the prescribed steps by opting to file directly with the Supreme Court rather than initiating the proceedings at the RTC, which is contrary to established procedural protocols.
Judicial Hierarchy and Jurisdiction
According to the rules, petitions for certiorari against decisions of heads of procuring agencies should initially be filed at the RTC. The Supreme Court's jurisdiction is reserved for cases with special circumstances justifying a direct appeal. FUCC did not provide sufficient grounds for bypassing this hierarchical structure, underscoring an important procedural faux pas which contributed to
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 178799)
Case Overview
- Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines, Third Division
- G.R. No.: 178799
- Date: January 19, 2009
- Petitioner: First United Constructors Corporation (FUCC)
- Respondents: Poro Point Management Corporation (PPMC), the Special Bids & Awards Committee (SBAC) of PPMC, Atty. Felix S. Racadio, and Satrap Construction Company, Inc. (SCCI)
- Nature of Action: Special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for a temporary restraining order.
Factual Antecedents
- FUCC sought to annul the re-bidding of the contract for the Upgrading of the San Fernando Airport Project, Phase I, which was held on May 8, 2007.
- The Notice of Award dated May 23, 2007, and the Notice to Proceed dated May 29, 2007, were also contested by FUCC, targeting SCCI as the awarded contractor.
- Initial approval of the contract was made by PPMC on January 26, 2007, with invitations sent to pre-qualify contractors.
- FUCC, along with C.M. Pancho Construction, Inc. and EEI-New Kanlaon Construction, Inc. Joint Venture, was pre-qualified but ultimately disqualified based on evaluation criteria.
- FUCC’s bid was rated as "failed" due to the absence of a crucial automated weather observation system and missing signatures on some documents.
- Following the denial of their protest against the SBAC’s decision, FUCC filed a petition for injunction to stop