Case Summary (G.R. No. 172538)
Contractual Background
On July 1, 2002, the LRA entered into a six-month security service contract with the respondent, which underwent several extensions. In the second quarter of 2004, LRA invited bids for the award of a new security service contract. The respondent and other bidders, including Quiambao Risk Management Specialist, submitted letters of intent. Following the bid process, respondent, along with five other bidders, qualified for the contract consideration.
Bid Protest and Allegations
On November 19, 2004, the respondent requested to be declared the winning bidder. However, it soon alleged that the BAC committed irregularities during the bidding process, leading the respondent to lodge a complaint with the Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Agency Operator, Inc. (PADPAO). This complaint resulted in a request to the LRA to hold the contract award until investigations could be conducted.
Contract Extension and Termination
On November 24, 2004, LRA extended the contract with the respondent on a "day-to-day" basis. On December 6, 2004, the LRA advised the respondent to pull out its security personnel due to the impending takeover by another bidder. On December 16, 2004, the respondent filed a Petition for Annulment of Public Bidding and Award with a prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order or Writ of Preliminary Injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City.
Jurisdictional Challenge
In its Answer, the LRA argued that the RTC lacked jurisdiction because the respondent failed to comply with the protest mechanism stipulated in Article XVII of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9184, the Government Procurement Act. The court eventually ordered the LRA to pay the respondent's security guards for services rendered after the contract termination, establishing liability under the principle of quantum meruit.
Appeals and Rulings
The LRA sought certiorari to challenge the RTC's order, but later, the RTC dismissed the respondent's complaint. The Court of Appeals subsequently denied the LRA's petition, supporting the trial court's order for payment based on justice and equity. The LRA filed a Motion for Reconsideration, reiterating its stance regarding jurisdiction.
Key Legal Provisions
R.A. No. 9184, specifically Section 55, governs the protest process, requiring that protests be made in writing, verified, and accompanied by a non-refundable protest fee. Section 58 states that cases filed without going through this protest process shall be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Analysis of Protest Compliance
The Court ruled that the respondent's initial letter protesting the bidding process did not satisfy the statutory requirements of a protest. It was neither verified nor accompanied by the required protest fee. This fail
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 172538)
Case Background
- Petitioner: Land Registration Authority (LRA), represented by Hon. Benedicto Ulep and other officials.
- Respondent: Lanting Security and Watchman Agency, represented by Atty. Thomas L. Lanting.
- Date of Decision: July 20, 2010.
- Case Number: G.R. No. 181735.
Facts of the Case
- LRA entered into a six-month security service contract with the respondent from July 1, 2002, to December 31, 2002.
- After several extensions, LRA issued an invitation for bids for a new security service contract in the second quarter of 2004.
- A total of 16 bidders submitted letters of intent, with six, including the respondent and Quiambao Risk Management Specialist, qualifying.
- On November 19, 2004, the respondent requested to be declared the winning bidder.
- The respondent alleged irregularities in the bidding process and filed a complaint with the Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Agency Operator, Inc. (PADPAO), requesting LRA to hold off awarding the contract.
- On November 24, 2004, LRA extended the respondent's contract on a "day-to-day" basis.
- On December 6, 2004, LRA ordered the respondent to pull out its security personnel, indicating that the lowest bidder would take over on December 16, 2004.
Legal Proceedings
- On December 16, 2004, the respondent filed a Petition for Annulment of Public Bidding and Award with a request fo