A.M. No. 20-08-05-SC - Re: Francisco T. Duque III

Case Summary (A.M. No. 20-08-05-SC)

Petitioner

JBros Construction Corporation (including the Fujian consortium) challenged DOH’s blacklisting and termination of the Phase II contract and sought interim judicial reliefs in the form of TRO/TROP and a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin implementation of DOH’s termination and blacklisting.

Respondent

Department of Health, Secretary Francisco T. Duque III, and the Government Procurement Policy Board were respondents to JBros’s petitions and were the entities implementing the termination and blacklisting challenged in court.

Key Dates and Procedural Milestones

Phase I contract executed 22 January 2016; Phase II executed March 2016 with DOH to deliver possession by 30 March 2016; DOH suspended Phase II on 31 May 2016; JBros sent Notice of Termination 25 January 2019 (contract deemed terminated 24 February 2019); DOH’s verified report/notice dated 21 February 2019 and Amended Notice of Termination 4 April 2019; DOH decision declaring termination and blacklisting issued 20 May 2019 (formal Blacklisting Order 24 July 2019, blacklisting effective 28 August 2019–28 August 2020); GPPB confirmation 30 August 2019; JBros first petition to RTC Branch 12 (Civil Case No. 19‑09240‑SC) denied PI on 26 September 2019 and later dismissed 14 October 2019; refiled as Special Proceeding (R‑MNL‑19‑12843‑SP) in Branch 27 with 20‑day TROP issued 19 December 2019; Presiding Judge Soriaso issued writ of preliminary injunction on 20 January 2020; DOH Secretary wrote the Court 9 March 2020 prompting OCA investigation; OCA report 7 January 2021; Supreme Court resolution 16 February 2021.

Applicable Law and Authorities

1987 Constitution (applicable to decisions after 1990), Republic Act No. 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act) — specifically Section 59 on submission of procurement contract disputes to arbitration and incorporation of arbitration in contracts, Republic Act No. 9285 (Alternative Dispute Resolution Act) referenced in the characterization of the petition, GPPB Guidelines for Blacklisting, Administrative Circular No. 7‑99 (exercise of utmost caution in issuing TROs and preliminary injunctions), and jurisprudence cited regarding judicial stability, forum shopping, and injunction doctrine.

Factual Background of the Procurement Dispute

The Barangay Health Stations Project sought to construct health stations using public elementary schools as sites. JBros entered into two contracts with DOH—Phase I (subject to arbitration) and Phase II. DOH allegedly failed to deliver possession of the Phase II sites by the agreed date, JBros claimed partial performance (14.37% completed) and attributed delay to DOH’s failure to furnish replacement sites and notify regional directors, and JBros invoked statutory termination rights after prolonged suspension. Following JBros’s Notice of Termination and its assertion that termination resulted from DOH’s fault, DOH issued its own notices, a verified report alleging irregularities, an Amended Notice of Termination, and ultimately a decision declaring termination and blacklisting with a demand for return of mobilization fee of P551,233,333.33.

Procedural History in the Courts

JBros first sought relief in Branch 12 (denial of preliminary injunction on 26 September 2019; parties ordered to file memoranda; JBros moved to dismiss and the case was dismissed on 14 October 2019). JBros refiled a separate petition in Branch 27 as a special proceeding in aid of arbitration, secured an ex parte 20‑day Temporary Restraining Order of Protection (TROP) on 19 December 2019, and after the TROP lapsed, Judge Soriaso proceeded and issued a writ of preliminary injunction on 20 January 2020 directing DOH to desist from implementing the termination, recall the blacklisting order, and submit delisting to the GPPB. DOH objected and sought reconsideration and inhibition; DOH Secretary brought the matter to the Supreme Court through a letter.

OCA Investigation and Findings

The OCA investigated the allegation that Judge Soriaso improperly issued a writ of preliminary injunction conflicting with Judge Enciso’s earlier denial and dismissal. The OCA found sufficient grounds to recommend that Judge Soriaso be charged for: (1) violating the doctrine of judicial stability by issuing an injunction that interfered with another branch’s prior order; (2) erroneously issuing a preliminary injunction where the acts sought to be enjoined were already completed; and (3) failing to recognize forum shopping by JBros when it dismissed the first case and promptly refilled a substantially identical petition. The OCA recommended furnishing the DOH letter as a formal complaint, giving Judge Soriaso opportunity to comment, and recommended fines for gross ignorance of the law and lesser violations.

Judge Soriaso’s Answer and Defense

Judge Soriaso denied liability for forum shopping on the ground that the two petitions were different in nature and did not preclude each other. She contended that there was no violation of the doctrine of judicial stability because the earlier civil case was already dismissed when she took cognizance of the special proceeding, and she asserted good faith and lack of knowledge of the earlier case’s decision, stating that her injunction was based on facts presented during the hearing in her sala.

Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis: Judicial Stability

The Court affirmed the OCA’s essential findings. It reiterated the doctrine of judicial stability (non‑interference): a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction should not be interfered with by another court of concurrent jurisdiction. A court acquiring jurisdiction over a case and rendering judgment has exclusive control over that judgment and its incidents. The Court held that a coordinate court generally cannot enjoin orders of another court of concurrent jurisdiction where that other court had the power to grant the relief sought.

Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis: Forum Shopping

Applying the established test for forum shopping—the identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs sought—the Court found that despite differing captions, both petitions had identical parties, sought the same outcome (nullifying blacklisting/termination), and required the same evidence. Thus the refiling amounted to forum shopping. The Court observed that had Judge Soriaso heeded the DOH’s notice of the earlier decision, she would have been more circumspect and avoided creating conflicting orders.

Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis: Injunction Doctrine and Fait Accompli

The Court emphasized the settled rule that a preliminary injunction will not lie to restrain acts that are already accomplished or consummated. Judge Enciso had concluded that the acts sought to be enjoined h

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. 20-08-05-SC)

Procedural Posture and Origin of the Administrative Matter

The matter arose from a Letter dated March 9, 2020 from DOH Secretary Francisco T. Duque III to Chief Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, calling attention to an alleged improper issuance of a preliminary injunction by RTC Manila, Branch 27 (Judge Teresa Patrimonio-Soriaso) in Spec. Pro. Case No. R-MNL-19-12843-SP despite an earlier denial of the same application by RTC Manila, Branch 12 (Judge Renata Z. Enciso) in Civil Case No. 19-09240-SC.
The Supreme Court referred the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for investigation, report and recommendation; the OCA submitted its report via Memorandum dated January 7, 2021.
The OCA summarized the controversy and recommended administrative action against Judge Soriaso; the Supreme Court adopted the OCA recommendation except as to penalty and rendered its resolution on February 16, 2021 (A.M. No. 20-08-05-SC).

Factual Background: The Barangay Health Stations Project and Contracts

The Barangay Health Stations Project was launched to provide functional Barangay Health Stations in every barangay, using public elementary schools as sites, to make quality health care accessible to the poor.
Through competitive public bidding, JBROS entered into two contracts with the Department of Health (DOH): Phase I and Phase II.
The contracts incorporated an arbitration clause in accordance with Section 59, Article XVIII of Republic Act No. 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act), providing that disputes from contract implementation are to be submitted to arbitration in the Philippines.
Phase I: contract executed on 22 January 2016; Phase I became the subject of an arbitration case between the parties.
Phase II: contract executed in March 2016; DOH was supposed to give possession of all 2,500 sites to JBROS by 30 March 2016.
JBROS contended completion of Phase II was contingent on DOH delivering sites; JBROS sent a letter dated 16 May 2016 to then-DOH Secretary Janette Garin citing reasons for delay, including undue delay in determination of replacement school sites and lack of information to Regional Directors preventing commencement.
DOH suspended Phase II on 31 May 2016; JBROS claimed it had accomplished at least 14.37% of the works and requested lifting of the suspension, but the request was not granted.
After nearly three years of suspension, JBROS sent a Notice of Termination dated 25 January 2019 pursuant to R.A. No. 9184, which entitles a contractor to terminate a contract suspended for at least sixty (60) days; DOH had thirty (30) days from receipt to resolve grounds or lift the suspension or the contract is deemed terminated by operation of law.
When DOH failed to act, the contract was deemed terminated by operation of law on 24 February 2019.
DOH then issued its own Notice of Termination dated 1 March 2019 with an attached verified report dated 21 February 2019 alleging irregularities by JBROS relative to Phase II; an Amended Notice of Termination and Supplemental Verified Report were issued on 4 April 2019.
JBROS demanded payment for claims arising from its termination; DOH issued a decision on 20 May 2019 resolving to declare the contract terminated; deny JBROS’s demand for payment for failure to prove its claim; blacklist the contractor pursuant to GPPB Guidelines for Blacklisting; and demand return of the mobilization fee in the amount of P551,233,333.33.
DOH denied JBROS’s motion for reconsideration on 15 July 2019 and issued a formal Blacklisting Order on 24 July 2019 disqualifying JBROS from participating in governmental procurement from 28 August 2019 to 28 August 2020; the GPPB confirmed inclusion of JBROS in the Consolidated Blacklist Report in a letter dated 30 August 2019.

Initial Judicial Proceedings and Divergent Orders

JBROS filed a Petition for Certiorari with application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or Status Quo Ante Order and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction challenging the DOH Blacklisting Order; the petition was raffled to Branch 12, RTC Manila (Civil Case No. 19-09240-SC), presided by Judge Renato Z. Enciso.
In an Order dated 26 September 2019, Judge Enciso denied JBROS’s prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, reasoning that the acts to be enjoined were already performed or completed prior to filing; parties were directed to file memoranda.
JBROS withdrew the Branch 12 case by filing a Motion to Dismiss on 3 October 2019 while respondents had yet to file responsive pleadings; Judge Enciso granted the motion in an Order dated 14 October 2019, dismissing the case without prejudice.
JBROS refiled the matter as a “Petition for Interim Measure of Protection in Aid of Arbitration under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act (R.A. No. 9285),” and urgently sought ex parte issuance of a 20-day Temporary Restraining Order of Protection (TROP). The refiled case was raffled to Branch 27, RTC Manila, docketed as Special Proceeding Case No. R-MNL-19-12843-SP.
In an Order dated 19 December 2019, Pairing Judge Lily Joy Labayo-Apatria, acting for Branch 27, issued the requested 20-day TROP.
The DOH filed a motion for reconsideration; on 20 January 2020, Presiding Judge Teresa Patrimonio-Soriaso denied the motion as moot and academic because the 20-day TROP had expired, and then proceeded to hear the application for a writ of preliminary injunction.
In an Order dated 20 January 2020, Judge Soriaso issued a writ of preliminary injunction directing DOH to desist from implementing the termination, recall the blacklisting order, and submit a Delisting Order to the GPPB notifying it of JBROS’s delisting—effectively removing JBROS from the GPPB’s list of blacklisted entities.
The DOH, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Motion for Inhibition and a Motion for Reconsideration following Judge Soriaso’s issuance