G.R. No. 217158 - Gios-Samar, Inc. vs. Department of Transportation and Communications

Case Summary (G.R. No. 217158)

Key Dates

– December 15, 2014: Invitation to Pre-qualify and Bid posted for airport projects.
– March 10, 2015: Instructions to Prospective Bidders issued, grouping airports into two “bundles.”
– April 3, 2015: Pre-Qualification Queries deadline.
– May 18, 2015: Submission of Qualification Documents deadline.
– March 27, 2015: Petition for Writ of Prohibition filed.

Applicable Law

– 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date 2019)
– Republic Act No. 6957, as amended by RA 7718 (BOT Law) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations
– Philippine Competition Act (RA 10667)
– Anti-Dummy Law (Commonwealth Act No. 108)
– Procurement rules under the BOT Law

Invitation and Bundling Scheme

– Six airports (Bacolod-Silay, Davao, Iloilo, Laguindingan, New Bohol-Panglao, Puerto Princesa) with a total cost of ₱116.23 billion.
– Concession period: 30 years via competitive bidding.
– March 10, 2015 ITPB: Airports bundled into Bundle 1 (Bacolod-Silay, Iloilo) and Bundle 2 (Davao, Laguindingan, Panglao); Puerto Princesa remained separate.
– Prospective bidders allowed to bid on one or both bundles; PBAC to clarify awards in a bid bulletin.

Petition for Prohibition

Grounds Asserted by Petitioner

Bundling violates the anti-dummy and equal-opportunity clause (Art. XII, Sec. 11) by enabling dubious foreign or undercapitalized entities to participate via consortiums.
Bundling creates monopolies forbidden under Art. XII, Sec. 19, allowing one bidder to control multiple airports.
Bundling imposes undue restraint of trade by pricing out medium-sized Filipino companies.
PBAC’s bundling constitutes grave abuse of discretion in excess of jurisdiction.
Public bidding integrity is compromised because bundling raises qualification thresholds.
Prayer
– Issuance of a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction to halt the bidding of bundled projects.

Respondents’ Comments and Counterarguments

DOTC
– Petition is premature; no actual bidding yet, no justiciable controversy.
– Petitioner lacks standing as taxpayer or private individual.
– Allegations on anti-dummy and equal-opportunity violations are speculative.
– Art. XII, Sec. 11 not applicable to procurement process.
– No monopoly or restraint of trade in bundling; no grave abuse of discretion.
CAAP
– Petition violates the hierarchy of courts doctrine; factual issues require trial.
– Petitioner lacks legal capacity and cause of action.

Court’s Jurisdictional Threshold and Hierarchy of Courts

– 1987 Constitution vests the Supreme Court with original jurisdiction over extraordinary writs (certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus) in cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls.
– Concurrent original jurisdiction shared with Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals.
– Direct recourse to the Supreme Court is allowed only for pure questions of law; factual disputes must be heard first by lower courts or tribunals.
– The “hierarchy of courts” doctrine is a constitutional filtering mechanism to preserve judicial resources and due process.

Legal vs. Factual Questions

– Petitioner’s constitutional objections to bundling are intertwined with factual issues (e.g., actual market structure, bidder qualifications, competitive effects).
– Resolution of these factual questions requires reception of evidence, beyond the Supreme Court’s role as finder of law.
– Direct petition implicates factual assessments (e.g., market relevance, dominant position, alleged dummy arrangements) suited to trial courts or specialized agencies.

Analysis of Monopoly and Restraint of Trade Claims

– Constitution (Art. XII, Sec. 19) allows regulation or prohibition of monopolies “when the public interest so requires” but does not outlaw all monopolies.
– Exclusive public-service concessions may inherently create non-violative monopolies under established jurisprudence (Anglo-Fil Trading).
– Philippine Competition Act (RA 10667) prohibits abuse of dominant position, not mere acquisition of market power.
– Petitioner failed to plead ultimate facts showing:
• Existence of a defined relevant market for airport services;
• Achievement of a dominant position by a bidder;
• Abusive conduct preventing competition.
– Restraint of trade claims under competition law likewise require evidence on market impact, efficiency gains, and overall competitiveness.

Anti-Dummy and Equal-Opportunity Claims

– Anti-Dummy Law penalizes false simulation of Filipino capital in corporations but requires proof of actual dummy stock arrangements.
– Art. XII, Sec. 11 mandates Filipino ownershi