You are on page 1of 6

1/2/2017 G.R. No. 86695 September 3, 1992 - MARIA ELENA MALAGA, ET AL. v. MANUEL R. PENACHOS, JR., ET AL.

: SEPTEMBER 1992 - PHILIPPINE SUP…

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™

|

chanrobles.com™

Search

Philippine Supre m e C ourt Jurisprude nce > Ye ar 1992 > Se pte m be r 1992 De cisions > G.R . No. 86695
Se pte m be r 3, 1992 - MAR IA ELENA MALAGA, ET AL. v. MANUEL R . PENAC HO S, JR ., ET AL.:

Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 86695. September 3, 1992.]
MARIA ELENA MALAGA, doing business under the name B.E. CONSTRUCTION; JOSIELEEN
NAJARRO, doing business under the name BEST BUILT CONSTRUCTION; JOSE N. OCCEÑA,
doing business under the name THE FIRM OF JOSE N. OCCEÑA; and the ILOILO BUILDERS
CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. MANUEL R. PENACHOS, JR., ALFREDO MATANGGA, ENRICO
TICAR AND TERESITA VILLANUEVA, in their respective capacities as Chairman and
Members of the Pre-qualification Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC)-BENIGNO
PANISTANTE, in his capacity as President of Iloilo State College of Fisheries, as well as in
their respective personal capacities; and HON. LODRIGIO L. LEBAQUIN, Respondents.
Salas, Villareal & Velasco, for Petitioners.
Virgilio A. Sindico for Respondents.
SYLLABUS

DebtKollect Company, Inc.

ChanRobles Intellectual Property
Division

1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; GOVERNMENT INSTRUMENTALITY, DEFINED. — The 1987 Administrative
C ode defines a government instrumentality as follows: Instrumentality refers to any agency of the
National Government, not integrated within the department framework, vested with special functions
or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds,
and enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter. This term includes regulatory
agencies, chartered institutions, and government-owned or controlled corporations. (Sec. 2 (5)
Introductory Provisions).
2. ID.; C HARTERED INSTITUTION; DEFINED; APPLIC ATION IN C ASE AT BAR. — The 1987
Administrative C ode describes a chartered institution thus: C hartered institution — refers to any
agency organized or operating under a special charter, and vested by law with functions relating to
specific constitutional policies or objectives. This term includes the state universities and colleges,
and the monetary authority of the state. (Sec. 2 (12) Introductory Provisions). It is clear from the
above definitions that ISC OF is a chartered institution and is therefore covered by P.D. 1818. There
are also indications in its charter that ISC OF is a government instrumentality. First, it was created in
pursuance of the integrated fisheries development policy of the State, a priority program of the
government to effect the socio-economic life of the nation. Second, the Treasurer of the Republic of
the Philippines shall also be the ex-officio Treasurer of the state college with its accounts and
expenses to be audited by the C ommission on Audit or its duly authorized representative. Third,
heads of bureaus and offices of the National Government are authorized to loan or transfer to it,
upon request of the president of the state college, such apparatus, equipment, or supplies and even
the services of such employees as can be spared without serious detriment to public service. Lastly,
an additional amount of P1.5M had been appropriated out of the funds of the National Treasury and it
was also decreed in its charter that the funds and maintenance of the state college would henceforth
be included in the General Appropriations Law. (Presidential Decree No. 1523)
3. ID.; PROHIBITION OF ANY C OURT FROM ISSUING INJUNC TION IN C ASES INVOLVING
INFRASTRUC TURE PROJEC TS OF GOVERNMENT (P.D. 1818); POWER OF THE C OURTS TO RESTRAIN
APPLIC ATION. — In the case of Datiles and C o. v. Sucaldito, (186 SC RA 704) this C ourt interpreted a
similar prohibition contained in P.D. 605, the law after which P.D. 1818 was patterned. It was there
declared that the prohibition pertained to the issuance of injunctions or restraining orders by courts

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1992septemberdecisions.php?id=609

1/6

ID. 1992 . and the party to whom it is awarded cannot benefit from it.D. 86844 September 1. Petitioner Jose Occeña submitted his own PRE-C 1 on December 5. they are liable in nominal damages at least in accordance with Article 2221 of the C ivil C ode. 86695 September 3. 28. which has been violated or invaded by the defendant may be vindicated or. ET A L. 61043 September 2. ET A L. JOSE S. non-compliance with the requirement will.chanrobles. No. thus defeating the guaranty that contractors be placed on equal footing when they submit their bids. (C altex Phil. without stating the hour thereof.IRENEO TOBIA S. Even so. 1992 . Justice Teodoro Padilla made it clear. — It has been held in a long line of cases that a contract granted without the competitive bidding required by law is void. No. Bids and Awards C ommittee (henceforth PBAC ) caused the publication in the November 25. The C ourt observed that to allow the courts to judge these matters would disturb the smooth functioning of the administrative machinery.. AWARD THEREOF. ET A L. v. Hence. These damages are to be assessed against the private respondents in the amount of P10. COURT OF TA X A PPEA LS. ET AL. 1992 . as a general rule. which states: Art.000. The Iloilo State C ollege of Fisheries (henceforth ISC OF) through its Pre-qualification. NIU KIM DUA N. the petitioners were disqualified because they failed to meet the new deadline and not because of their expired licenses. RODRIGUEZ.D.. collusion and fraud in the award of these contracts to the detriment of the public.R.E. c om . ET A L. COURT OF A PPEA LS. There are at least two irregularities committed by PBAC that justified injunction of the bidding and the award of the project. 1992 . 1992 . POLIC IES AND GUIDELINES PRESC RIBED FOR GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUC TURE (PD 1594).com 5. 56865 September 2. The new schedule caused the pre-disqualification of the petitioners as recorded in the minutes of the PBAC meeting held on December 6.R. No. as private respondents now claim. PBAC shall provide prospective bidders with the Notice to Pre-qualification and other relevant information regarding the proposed work. JR. and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. Delgado Bros. ET A L.JA IME LEDESMA v. submitted their pre-qualification documents at two o’clock in the afternoon of December 2. 4. The plaintiffs claimed that although they had submitted their PRE-C 1 on time. No.R. DIEZ G. 1988.RODOLFO ENCA RNA CION v..R. 1992 . 1989. P & O respectively: both were marked on December 28.E. FERNA NDO S.R. v. : SEPTEMBER 1992 . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNA L REVENUE G. 62554-55 September 2. ID. which prohibits any court from issuing injunctions in cases involving infrastructure projects of the government. ENRIQUE JOCSON G. C ASE AT BAR. 1992 . to be paid separately for each of petitioners B.D. 1 Petitioners Maria Elena Malaga and Josieleen Najarro. COURT OF A PPEA LS. The purpose of competitive bidding is negated if some contractors are informed ahead of their rivals of the plans and specifications that are to be the subject of their bids. 372) In the case at bar. 32657 September 1. CRUZ.288 Grab Your Tickets Online Now! airasia. 1992 . C onstruction and Best Built C onstruction. 1992 . No. it was the lack of proper notice regarding the pre-qualification requirement and the bidding that caused the elimination of petitioners B. We see no reason why the above ruling should not apply to P.. Nos.JOEL GA RGA NERA v. 1988 issues of the Western Visayas Daily an Invitation to Bid for the construction of the Micro Laboratory Building at ISC OF. C onstruction and Best Built C onstruction. 1988.com/cralaw/1992septemberdecisions. 1818. Moral damages do not appear to be due either. v. respectively doing business under the name of the B. 51289 September 2. Invitations to Bid shall be advertised for at least three times within a reasonable period but in no case less than two weeks in at least two newspapers of general circulations. RUIZ. Board of Education.PHILIPPINE SUP… against administrative acts in controversies involving facts or the exercise of discretion in technical cases. No. were not issued on time. they were not included in the list of pre-qualified bidders. 1988.R. As a result. G. ID. and Best Built. TEMISTOCLES B. ET A L. No. 6.LEOPOLDO FA CINA L. No. after which date no PRE-C 2 shall be submitted and received.R. the PBAC refused without just cause to accept them. and that the bids would be received and opened on December 12.M.. No. No. that on issues definitely outside of this dimension and involving questions of law. 26. (Hannan v. v. v. 1992 . ph : v i r t ual l aw l i br ar y The facts are not disputed.: A . 32075 September 1. compensatory damage may not be awarded to them. 1988. having been submitted after the cut-off time of ten o’clock in the morning of December 2. A GA PITO I. Prospective contractors shall be required to file their ARC -C ontractors C onfidential Application for Registration & C lassifications & the PRE-C 2 C onfidential Pre-qualification Statement for the Project (prior to the amendment of the rules. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff. render the same void and of no effect.R. 1992 . 1988.D.D. (B. 1988. including the irregularities in the announcement of the bidding and their efforts to persuade the ISC OF president to award the project after two days from receipt of the restraining order and before they moved to lift such order. v. the C ourt cannot close its eyes to the evident bad faith that characterized the conduct of the private respondents. CRUZ.R. (IB 13 1. 1594 as amended) PBAC advertised the pre-qualification deadline as December 2. and the opening of bids to 1 o’clock in the afternoon of December 12. Moreover. ET A L. 1992 - CIVIL This controversy involves the extent and applicability of P.R.REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. This purpose was defeated by the irregularities committed by PBAC . 1818. A regulation of the matter which excludes any of these factors destroys the distinctive character of the system and thwarts the purpose of its adoption. MANUEL R..SPOUSES CESA R DE RA MOS. This scheduled was changed and a notice of such change was merely posted at the ISC OF bulletin board.R. 1992 BIENVENIDO O. EFFEC T OF NON-C OMPLIANC E THEREOF.00 each. 25 Okla.. ET A L.FLORITA T.1/2/2017 G. 605 from exercising their power to restrain or prohibit administrative acts.D. G. 1992 . 86051 September 1. It has been held that the three principles in public bidding are the offer to the public. NOT SUFFIC IENTLY C OMPLIED WITH IN C ASE AT BAR. ID.. 1992 .. 1992 . 1988. 3 o’clock in the afternoon. 1988.R. J.php?id=609 2/6 . RULES IMPLEMENTING THEREOF. 50618 September 2. 70120 September 2. WHEN AVAILABLE. All three of them were not allowed to participate in the bidding because their documents were considered late.DELTA MOTOR SA LES CORPORA TION v. September-1992 Jurisprudence A . 1594 is to secure competitive bidding and to prevent favoritism. It was not because of their expired licenses. BA UTISTA v. recognized. G. 2221. ET A L. 1988. ID. the petitioners filed a complaint with the Regional Trial C ourt of Iloilo against the chairman and members of PBAC in their official and personal capacities. No.2-19. could not secure http://www. this was referred to as Pre-C 1) not later than the deadline set in the published Invitation to Bid. DE CISION G. On December 12. MA RCOS v. ET A L. prescribing policies and guidelines for government infrastructure contracts. G. ID. While it may be true that there were fourteen contractors who were pre-qualified despite the change in schedule. PURPOSE THEREOF. 96 Phil. & Best Built’s licenses were valid until June 30.R. 46025 September 2. No. 70746-47 September 1.M. 92-8-027-SC September 2.RE: JOSEFINA V.E. It has not been shown that the irregularities committed by PBAC were induced by or participated in by any of the contractors. 7. Nos. ID. For such questionable acts. No. c hanr obl e s . G. PENACHOS. DYNA STY A MUSEMENT CENTER CORPORA TION. The notice announced that the last day for the submission of pre-qualification requirements (PRE C -1) ** was December 2. — Under the Rules Implementing P. NOMINAL DAMAGES. ET A L.REPUBLIC BA NK v. 43747 September 2. COURT OF FIRST INSTA NCE OF MA NILA . the plans and specifications which are the contractors’ guide to an intelligent bid. this fact did not cure the defect of the irregular notice.MARIA ELENA MALAGA. however. — As there is no evidence of the actual loss suffered by the petitioners. Flying to Boracay? ₱1. The notice advanced the cut-off time for the submission of pre-qualification documents to 10 o’clock in the morning of December 2. and announced that the opening of bids would be at 3 o’clock in the afternoon of December 12. 1594.E. ET AL. 368) The fact that an invitation for bids has been communicated to a number of possible bidders is not necessarily sufficient to establish compliance with the requirements of the law if it is shown that other possible bidders have not been similarly notified. C IVIL LAW. No. COURT OF A PPEA LS. ET A L. G. G. G. Implementing Rules and Regulations of P. — The purpose of the rules implementing P. 1988. No. Notably. 1988]) We have held that where the law requires a previous advertisement before government contracts can be awarded. 1988. courts could not be prevented by P. RTJ-88-22 September 1.PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. liability shall attach only to the private respondents for the prejudice sustained by the petitioners as a result of the anomalies described above.R. an opportunity for competition and a basis for exact comparison of bids. [Ex. PA LON G. ET A L.SIA O TIA O HONG v.

1988. 99359 September 2.R. 103269 September 2. 86695 September 3. 1988 bidding and the acceptance of their PRE-C 1 documents. v. 1523 and since the operations and maintenance of the ISC OF are provided for in the General Appropriations Law.R.R. Nos. the prohibition presumed a valid and legal government project. COURT OF A PPEA LS. INTERMEDIA TE A PPELLA TE COURT. v. DE JESUS. 1992 . ESCA REA L v. 1992 . v. or continuing the execution or implementation of any such project. v.D. ET A L. The time and date of bidding was published as December 12.REPUBLIC PLA NTERS BA NK v. G. 5 And although the project in question was a "C onstruction.PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. No. 97408-09 September 2. issued a mimeographed "Invitation to Bid" form. INC. G. No. MA SA LIM CA SIM G. Even if P.RESTITUTO DE LEON v. Having failed to take immediate action to compel PBAC to pre-qualify them http://www. G. No. to wit: c hanr obl e s . A BA RQUEZ. SUA REZ. 1992 RA YMUNDO v. v. 4 In the petition now before us. MA NUEL R. 80812 September 2. the private respondents insist that PBAC posted on the ISC OF bulletin board an announcement that the deadline for the submission of pre-qualifications documents was at 10 o’clock of December 2.LUZ E. PEÑERO G. ET A L. pointing out that while ISC OF was a state college. At any rate.1/2/2017 G. the trial court lifted the restraining order and denied the petition for preliminary injunction.MARIA ELENA MALAGA. (ii) for PBAC to have a uniform basis for evaluating the bids. COURT OF A PPEA LS. construction and Best Built construction had filed only their letters of intent. 1992 . NA TIONA L LA BOR RELA TIONS COMMISSION. to prohibit any person or persons. ET A L. 93634 September 2. 88788 September 4. ET A L. COURT OF A PPEA LS. and the disqualification became final on December 6. G. COURT OF A PPEA LS. they sought the resetting of the December 12. 1992 . v. PENA CHOS. INC.EDILBERTO C. 96333 September 2. the petition for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction would still fail because the sheriff’s return showed that PBAC was served a copy of the restraining order after the bidding sought to be restrained had already been held. 92795-96 September 2. 1992 . 74618 September 2. 1818 were applicable. No. 1992 . 1992 . the PBAC already refused to accept petitioners’ documents.R. 87318 September 2.R. G. v. Emphasis supplied). On January 2. who was not a party to the case. No. 1992 . or preliminary infrastructure project. G. COURT OF A PPEA LS. or a mining. ET A L. 91284 September 3.DA NILO I. PINEDA G. ET A L. 1992 . ET A L. 1992 .R. 92310 September 3. G. 1992 .R.FINMA N GENERA L A SSURA NCE CORPORA TION v. G.R. for the purpose of inviting bidders to participate. G.D. 91535 September 2. by opening to all the particulars of a project. G. 1992 . ET A L. 1992 . 1992 .R. 1818 could not apply to the present controversy because the project was vitiated with irregularities. v. preliminary injunction. B-1) is to contain the particulars of the project subject of bidding for the purpose of. B.. 77285 September 4.PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. and who. ET A L. forest or other natural resource development project of the government.R. NILO H.R.R. Lebaquin issued a restraining order prohibiting PBAC from conducting the bidding and awarding the project. G. A L.R. A MA DEO A BUYEN G. The decree reads pertinently as follows: G. COURT OF A PPEA LS G. 97805 September 2. lead that corporation to bankruptcy through mismanagement or misappropriation of its funds.R.EDUA RDO C. ET A L. ET A L. JR. or the operation of such public utility. 1988 without indicating any time.PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. the plaintiffs argued against the applicability of P. 1992 .D. at 2 o’clock in the afternoon of December 12. entity or government official from proceeding with. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. COURT OF A PPEA LS. it had its own charter and separate existence and was not part of the national government or of any local political subdivision.R. No.R. v. yet it was held at 10:00 o’clock in the morning. use the mandatory provisions of the decree to avoid the consequences of their misleads (p. No. 1988. G. is bound by basic principles of fairness and decency under the due process clauses of the Bill of Rights.PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.D.R. v. 1992 . 1818.D. The movants also contended that the question of the propriety of a preliminary injunction had become moot and academic because the restraining order was received late. FREDDIE B. 1988 at 3:00 p. No. the private respondents maintain that since the members of the board of trustees of the ISC OF are all government officials under Section 7 of P. 1992 . No.R. ET A L. No. OMA WENG G. No. and the opening of bids would be held at 1 o’clock in the afternoon of December 12. MANUEL R. (iii) to prevent collusion between a bidder and the PBAC . On December 16. it is reiterated that P. G. MELGA R G. 385. 1818. 1992 . the needed plans and other documents. ET A L. ET A L. Exh. 188. At two o’clock in the afternoon. COURT OF A PPEA LS. v i r t ual 1a w l i br ar y The government. 95249 September 2. and were unable to participate in the scheduled bidding. G. Private respondents. Nenette Garuello.R.chanrobles. 3 where the C ourt allowed the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction despite a similar prohibition found in P. A LFONSO B. ET A L. ET A L.D.PHILIPPINE SUP… A ERONA UTICS A DMINISTRA TION. including among others public utilities for the transport of the goods and commodities. In their opposition of the motion. ET A L.R. JR. ESTA NISLA O GENERA LA O. No. G. TOMA S MORENO. COURT OF A PPEA LS. 1992 .PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. 1988. JA IME G. CA IÑA v. v. P-90-418 September 3.. ET INTERMEDIA TE A PPELLA TE COURT. 1992 ." the private respondents used an Invitation to Bid form for "Materials. TA NTIA DO c hanr obl e s v i r t ual aw l i br ar y c ha nr ob1e s v i r t ua l 1a w l i br ar y Section 1. : SEPTEMBER 1992 . No. Judge Lodrigio L. No.A LEJA NDRA RIVERA OLA C. 93141 September 2.BENJA MIN EDA ÑO v. and Best Built filed through their common representative. PENACHOS.PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. Even if it were not.E. 83995 September 4.MERLIN P. NA TIONA L LA BOR RELA TIONS COMMISSION.MA NILA RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CORP. 1992 . JR. ET A L.SPA RTA N SECURITY & DETECTIVE A GENCY. after ruining it. IAC . 1818 does not cover the ISC OF because of its separate and distinct corporate personality. G. In their C omment. INTERMEDIA TE A PPELLA TE COURT. The invitation to bid as published fixed the deadline of submission of pre-qualification document on December 2. 78777 September 2. 96952-56 September 2. the complaint had already been duly amended to include him as a party defendant.M. CONWA Y B.R. No. the defendants filed a motion to lift the restraining order on the ground that the C ourt was prohibited from issued restraining orders. v. 385 was never meant to protect officials of governmentlending institutions who take over the management of a borrower corporation. ET A L. (i) enabling bidders to make an intelligent and accurate bids. 1992 . No. No.R. c om : v i r t ual l aw l i br ar y 1. stevedoring and arrastre contracts. v. ET A L.R. ET A L. implementation or operation. 1992 . 86695 September 3. 1992 . NA TIONA L LA BOR RELA TIONS COMMISSION.PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. 99050 September 2.A NA LIM KA LA W v. P. 1992 .PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. 1992 . 1988.A GRICULTURA L A ND HOME EXTENSION DEVELOPMENT GROUP v.SILLIMA N UNIVERSITY v. In their prayer.com/cralaw/1992septemberdecisions.R. PEPITO T. 90693 September 3. ET A L.. No.. Nos. ET AL. yet after 10:00 o’clock of the given late. No.R. 1992 . not one tainted with anomalies like the project at bar.. v.D. 1992 . the Invitation to Bid prepared by the respondents and the Itemized Bill of Quantities therein were left blank. They also asked that if the bidding had already been conducted. COURT OF A PPEA LS. No. v. 94918 September 2. preliminary injunctions and preliminary mandatory injunctions by P. 2 G. the defendants be directed not to award the project pending resolution of their complaint. ET AL. No. ET A L. NA TIONA L LA BOR RELA TIONS COMMISSION. v.R.D. v. No. The C ourt therein stated that: c ha nr ob1e s G. 84256 September 2. The ISC OF president was not an indispensable party because the signing of the award was merely a ministerial function which he could perform only upon the recommendation of the Award C ommittee. COURT OF A PPEA LS. v.R. As of ten o’clock in the morning of December 2.PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. the members of the PBAC could not be restrained from awarding the project because the authority to do so was lodged in the President of the ISC OF.D. Additionally. fishery. COURT OF A PPEA LS. ET A L. 92461 September 2. the project itself had not yet been awarded. their pre-qualification documents which were admitted but stamped "submitted late." 6 The petitioners also point out that the validity of the writ of preliminary injunction had not yet become moot and academic because even if the bids had been opened before the restraining order was issued. No. No. They also cited Filipinas Marble C orp.EDILBERTO NA TIVIDA D v.R. ET A L. 1818. TA N v.PRIVA TE DEVELOPMENT CORPORA TION OF THE PHIL. 1988. 1992 . No C ourt in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order. after the bidding had been conducted and closed at eleven thirty in the morning of that date. On the same date. No.PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. however. 1992 . ET A L. 1992 . No. 95843 September 2. ERNESTO L. 1992 . G.R.m.D. No. DE VERA v. ET A L. v. 100970 September 2. 1818. 1594 and Implementing Rules. G.R. NA TIONA L LA BOR RELA TIONS COMMISSION. No. it is should be considered a government institution whose infrastructure project is covered by P. It is also stressed again that the prohibition under P. or any public utility operated by the government. It declared that the building sought to be construed at the ISC OF was an infrastructure project of the government falling within the coverage of P. No. 1989. or pursuing any lawful activity necessary for such execution. No. B.ORLA NDO M.R.SMI FISH INDUSTRIES. v." The petitioners were informed of their disqualification on the same date. 2. No. Regarding the schedule for pre-qualification. SERDA N G. REYNA LDO VA LIENTE A .php?id=609 3/6 . v. 95921 September 2. G. G. G. 1988. No. 73198 September 2. which by law (P.R.ESTA TE DEVELOPERS A ND INVESTORS CORPORA TION v. EDUA RDO L.E. 75242 September 2. 1992 . 3.R.SPOUSES ROBERT DINO. ET A L.MA RIA ELENA MA LA GA . Furthermore.D. 92789 September 2. JR.

as a general rule. 1992 .ERNA NDO C.R. (Sec. 94511-13 September 18.C.R.BA GUIO COUNTRY CLUB CORPORA TION v. it does not automatically follow that ISC OF is covered by the prohibition in the said decree. No. heads of bureaus and offices of the National Government are authorized to loan or transfer to it.DIVINE WORD UNIVERSITY OF TA CLOBA N v. No. 1988. DISTRITO. this fact did not cure the defect of the irregular notice. 3248 September 18. 57475 September 14.PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.R. A SIA N CONSUMER A ND INDUSTRIA L FINA NCE CORP. v. after which date no PRE-C 2 shall be submitted and received. POLIZON G. No.PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. specifications and proposal book forms should made thirty days before the date of bidding. No. or supplies and even the services of such employees as can be spared without serious detriment to public service. v.R. v. No. Lastly. 70890 September 18. PBAC set deadlines for the filing of the PRE-C 1 and the opening of bids and then changed these deadlines without prior notice to prospective participants. ET A L. and the monetary authority of the state. 1992 . No. SECRETA RY OF LA BOR.PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.R. 605 from exercising their power to restrain or prohibit administrative acts. Justice Teodoro Padilla made it clear. 1992 . 2 (12) Introductory Provisions). 12 Second. 1992 . 98062 September 11. and the opening of bids to 1 o’clock in the afternoon of December 12. SESBREÑO v.’s temporary certificate of Renewal of C ontractor’s License was valid only until September 30. The notice advanced the cut-off time for the submission of pre-qualification documents to 10 o’clock in the morning of December 2. G. ET A L.R. http://www. 1988. MISON. No. In the case of Datiles and C o. 55741 September 11. and announced that the opening of bids would be at 3 o’clock in the afternoon of December 12.php?id=609 4/6 . G. this was referred to as PRE-C 1) not later than the deadline set in the published Invitation to Bid. G. No. however. No. PA DILLA G. ET A L. No. ET A L. ET A L.R. In their Rejoinder.PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ELSIE B.CECILE DE OCA MPO. Prospective contractors shall be required to file their ARC -C ontractors C onfidential Application for Registration & C lassifications & the PRE-C 2 C onfidential Pre-qualification Statement for the Project (prior to the amendment of the rules. No.HERCULES INDUSTRIES. v. No. 102397 September 4. No. they raise as an additional irregularity the violation of the rule that where the estimate project cost is from P1M to P5M. ET A L. ET A L. vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law. G.PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. 7 They point out that these forms were issued only on December 2.R. ET A L. non-compliance with the requirement will. while Best Built’s license was valid only up to June 30. ET A L. ET A L.R. ET A L. and Best Built were received although filed late and were reviewed by the Award C ommittee. It was there declared that the prohibition pertained to the issuance of injunctions or restraining orders by courts against administrative acts in controversies involving facts or the exercise of discretion in technical cases. RA UL. the private respondents aver that the documents of B.R. 1818.R.MA LA YA N INTEGRA TED INDUSTRIES. G. c om . 1992 . 1988. ET A L. No. or 30 days before the scheduled bidding.PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ET A L. ET A L. ET A L. Invitations to Bid shall be advertised for at least three times within a reasonable period but in no case less than two weeks in at least two newspapers of general circulations. GO IT BUN.R.1/2/2017 G. A . it was created in pursuance of the integrated fisheries development policy of the State. 1992 . 95540 September 18. No. v.D. COURT OF A PPEA LS. prescribing policies and guidelines for government infrastructure contracts. v. the issuance of plans. 1992 . and enjoying operational autonomy. No.PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. 8 Nevertheless.PHIL. Notably.PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. JR. that on issues definitely outside of this dimension and involving questions of law. equipment. courts could not be prevented by P. G. 91001 September 18. No. render the same void and of no effect 11 The facts that an invitation for bids has been communicated to a number of possible bidders is not necessarily sufficient to establish compliance with the requirements of the law if it is shown that other public bidders have not been similarly notified.5M had been appropriated out of the funds of the National Treasury and it was also decreed in its charter that the funds and maintenance of the state college would henceforth be included in the General Appropriations Law. MONICA P. GRIÑO. v. 1992 . 1992 .R.D. SILFERIO F. No. 1988. v. the beginning of the 30-day period prior to the scheduled bidding. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. 1992 . PBAC should have issued them on November 12. v. NA TIONA L LA BOR RELA TIONS COMMISSION. 94825 September 4.REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. INTERMEDIA TE A PPELLA TE COURT. BA LTA ZA R R.DOMINGO R. a priority program of the government of effect the socio-economic life of the nation. 103903 September 11. 86218 September 18.R. 95456 September 18. 1988. 1992 . 1992 .PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. G. No. G. A DRIA NO S. 1818 was patterned. v. NA TIONA L LA BOR RELA TIONS COMMISSION. SR. c hanr obl e s v i r t ual aw l i br ar y c hanr obl e s . No. G. The same C ode describes a chartered institution thus: c ha nr ob1e s v i r t ua l 1a w l i br ar y C hartered institution — refers to any agency organized or operating under a special charter. NA TIVIDA D. SICA T despite their notice of disqualification. v. No. G. 2 (5) Introductory Provisions). No. LA RRY A . v. 1992 . 1992 . The new schedule caused the pre-disqualification of the petitioners as recorded in the minutes of the PBAC meeting held on December 6.R. MANUEL R. 1992 . 1992 . 97441 September 11.R. 1992 . LA YNO v. 1988.LUZ LA TA GA N v. 1992 . v. ET A L. ET AL. 86695 September 3. or only ten days before the bidding scheduled for December 12.R. ET A L..PHILIPPINE SUP… G.D. It is clear from the above definitions that ISC OF is a chartered institution and is therefore covered by P. chartered institutions. 605. v.SIMPLICIO C. MA RIO A . 1594.D. 1992 . 1992 . ET A L. SOTERO A . CORPORA TION v. G. 1992 . c hanr obl e s l aw l i br ar y : r e dnad The C ourt has considered the arguments of the parties in light of their testimonial and documentary evidence and the applicable laws and jurisprudence. G. (Sec. INC.E. At the very latest. DIZON. ph First. G.RA UL H. No. SA MPA YA N. v.R. 93842 September 7. and governmentowned or controlled corporations. While it may be true that there were fourteen contractors who were pre-qualified despite the change in schedule. VA LENCIA G. 101539 September 4. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. IRENEO TIWA KEN G. 1992 . 1988. G. No. 97111-13 September 4. ET A L.R. 1988.chanrobles.R. endowed with some if not all corporate powers. No. This term includes the state universities and colleges.CRESENCIO LIBI. 82586 September 11. 89278 September 4. DOMINGO CA SINILLO G.R. MA RCELO v. an additional amount of P1. 73919 September 18. v. INTERMEDIA TE A PPELLA TE COURT A .MELA NIO D. SILLO G. We see no reason why the above ruling should not apply to P.SPOUSES ROMULO DE LA CRUZ. ET A L. No. This schedule was changed and a notice of such change was merely posted at the ISC OF bulletin board. v. 1992 . B. 1818.R. 84917 September 18.PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.R. First. PBAC shall provide prospective bidders with the Notice of Pre-qualification and other relevant information regarding the proposed work. v. 73071 September 11. ET A L. 1992 .SA LVA DOR M.com/cralaw/1992septemberdecisions. JA VIER. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSA TION COMMISSION.R. v. v.D. 91915 September 11. The C ourt observed that to allow the courts to judge these matters would disturb the smooth functioning of the administrative machinery. BA ÑEZ G.. the law after which P. ET A L. without stating the hour thereof. G. : SEPTEMBER 1992 .R. No. v. No. SECRETA RY OF LA BOR A ND EMPLOYMENT. 91159 September 11. REGOBERTO YBEA S G. and not at the latest on November 12. ET A L. 1992 .R. 105346 September 4. 1992 .R. 1992 . The 1987 Administrative C ode defines a government instrumentality as follows: c ha nr ob1e s v i r t ua l 1a w l i br ar y Instrumentality refers to any agency of the National Government. A LEJA NDRO C.R. 94828 September 18. 105120 September 4. QUEROBEN A . INTERMEDIA TE A PPELLA TE COURT. 96329 September 18.R. ET A L. Second. G. No. 1992 .R. Under the Rules Implementing P. ET A L. NA TIONA L LA BOR RELA TIONS COMMISSION. they cannot now come to this C ourt to question the binding proper in which they had not participated.R. This term includes regulatory agencies. 101469 September 4. 1992 . CRUZ In the petitioners’ Reply. the petitioners were disqualified because they failed to meet the new deadline and not because of their expired licenses. 1992 . G. 75915-16 September 18. 96255 September 18. which discovered that the contractors had expired licenses. PBAC was required to issue to pre-qualified applicants the plans. 1992 .R. There are at least two irregularities committed by PBAC that justified injunction of the bidding and the award of the project. A RCHIE Q.MARIA ELENA MALAGA. DA ZA .PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. upon request of the president of the state college. No.R.PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. 1988. 9 this C ourt interpreted a similar prohibition contained in P. COURT OF A PPEA LS. BA GISTA G. There are also indications in its charter that ISC OF is a government instrumentality. ET A L.MA BUHA Y VINYL CORP.C. v. FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT A UTHORITY v. No. 94375 September 4. v. No. A LVA REZ G. No. 1988. Third.. 10 PBAC advertised the pre-qualification deadline as December 2. PENACHOS. specifications and proposal book forms for the project to be bid thirty days before the date of bidding if the estimate project cost was between P1M and P5M. PBAC has not denied that these forms were issued only on December 2. not integrated within the department framework. RUFO NERI. 74851 September 14.R. FERNA NDITO S. v. v.SPS.E. G. It finds for the petitioners. 1992 .NA TIONA L IRRIGA TION A DMINISTRA TION. FRA NCISCO G. G. c om : c hanr obl e s . and vested by law with functions relating to specific constitutional policies or objectives. ET A L. No. v.PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. administering special funds. G. No.PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. Sucaldito. G. 1992 . 1988. 92988 September 9. REYNA LDO S. 1988. 1992 . such apparatus. *** We have held that where the law requires a previous advertisement before government contracts can be awarded. 1992 . No. NA TIONA L LA BOR RELA TIONS COMMISSION.D. ET AL. ELI G.RIZA L COMMERCIA L BA NKING CORPORA TION v. usually through a charter. the Treasurer of the Republic of the Philippines also be the ex-officio Treasurer of the state college with its accounts and expenses to be audited by the C ommission on Audit or its duly authorized representative. v.

WILFREDO SA BORNIDO It is apparent that the present controversy did not arise from the discretionary acts of the administrative body nor does it involve merely technical matters. CORONA v. G. which has been violated or invaded by the defendant may be vindicated or. FLORIDA G. v. Gen. v. for their malfeasance in office.R. collusion and fraud in the award of these contracts to the detriment of the public. The purpose of competitive bidding is negated if some contractors are informed ahead of their rivals of the plans and specifications that are to be the subject of their bids. G.. Hannan v. PENACHOS. Presidential Decree No.KNITJOY MA NUFA CTURING. No. 300 25 C omp. Annex A. 99046 September 28. 1992 . 1992 . 2. Rollo.KHOSROW MINUCHER v. L-44936 September 25. ET A L.1/2/2017 G. 1992 .000. COURT OF A PPEA LS. Exhibit E-2. 97356 September 30. 101706 September 23." This fait accompli has made the petition for a writ of preliminary injunction moot and academic. Hence. 1594 as amended. ET A L.LIBERTA D SA NTOS. It has been held in a long line of cases that a contract granted without the competitive bidding required by law is void. and c) removing the said chairman and members from the PBAC board of trustees. 1992 . P. 82630 September 30. ET A L.R. Moral damages do not appear to be due either. Alfredo Matangga.PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. COURT OF A PPEA LS. INC. ET A L.00 each. ET A L. 1992 . 91359 September 25. Board of Education. to each pay separately to petitioners Maria Elena Malaga and Josieleen Najarro nominal damages P10. 1594 is to secure competitive bidding and to prevent favoritism. LOPEZ G. COURT OF A PPEA LS. ET A L. For such questionable acts.R. 10. Rules and Regulations for Government Infrastructure C ontracts) as amended. 102381 September 29.R. This purpose was defeated by the irregularities committed by PBAC . G. ET A L.ENRICO SY v. 211. BUENA VENTURA ENTERPRISES v. 82531 September 30. 1523. MA RIA MENDOZA NA VA RETTE.SPOUSES A GOSTO MUÑOZ. v. 1992 . No. 105017 September 30. v.R. 7. it was the lack of proper notice regarding the pre-qualification requirement and the bidding that caused the elimination of petitioners B.A QUA LYN CORPORA TION v.MARIA ELENA MALAGA.PA BLO NIDOY v.E. No. 6. No. G.R. PURA FERRER-CA LLEJA .GOLDEN COUNTRY FA RMS. No.R.R. It was not because of their expired licenses. 1992 .R. 1988. 61218 September 23. v. No.. G.DOMINGO T. 1818. C osts against PBAC . G.R. 8. Guidelines. COURT OF A PPEA LS. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff. 1992 . G. 84. Enrico Ticar. C onstruction and Best Built C onstruction. including the irregularities in the announcement of the bidding and their efforts to persuade the ISC OF president to award the project after two days from receipt of the restraining order and before they moved to lift such order.A RTURO C. 3340-3365. 214. We note from Annex Q of the private respondent’s memorandum. Let a copy of this decision be sent to the Office of the Ombudsman. COURT OF A PPEA LS. Rollo. EDGA RDO H. We come now to the liabilities of the private respondents.D. SA NVA R DEVELOPMENT CORP. No. 23.. COURT OF A PPEA LS. and Teresita Villanueva. ET A L. ET AL. Exhibit E-3-a. p.VETERA NS MA NPOWER A ND PROTECTIVE SERVICES. U. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. No. c om . 85086 September 24. the challenged restraining order was not improperly issued by the respondent judge and the writ of preliminary injunction should not have been denied. 368. 1992 . MA RINO SA PUGA Y. p. No. Official Gazette. 1992 . 1988. No. liability shall attach only to the private respondents for the prejudice sustained by the petitioners as a result of the anomalies described above.E. 102141 September 18. No. Annex F.MA RIA GULA NG v. judgment is hereby rendered: a) upholding the restraining order dated December 12.R. JA PSA Y G.R. ROMERO G. Implementing Rules and Regulations of P.php?id=609 5/6 . No. Even so. 13 In the case at bar. they are liable in nominal damages at least in accordance with Article 2221 of the C ivil C ode. recognized.PHILIPPINE A IRLINES. A RTURO A . Rollo of Exhibits. 31.R. No. 105227 September 18. 83580 September 23. ** Implementing Rules and Regulations on PD 1594 (Prescribing Policies. A LA BA N G. INC. G. 53630 September 30. COURT OF A PPEA LS. 14 It has not been shown that the irregularities committed by PBAC were induced by or participated in by any of the contractors. and Best Built. to be paid separately for each of petitioners B. COURT OF A PPEA LS. Rollo of Exhibits.2-19. INC. ET A L. 58027 September 28.NELLY LIM v. 87. Jr. 97765 September 24. C 1. SO ORDERED. b) ordering the chairman and the members of the PBAC board of trustees. VICTOR E. G. 25 Okla. G. G. Medialdea and Bellosillo. 81883 September 23. l i br ar y : r ed It has been held that the three principles in public bidding are the offer to the public. ET A L. JJ. Moreover. 91114 September 25. 5.PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ET A L. No. v. The purpose of the rules implementing P. 1989. ET A L. 1992 .00 each.D. Occeña Builders. were not issued on time. G. v. No.R. v. 1992 . No. 1991 A RSENIO P. 102693 September 23. G. Rollo.E.R. VERCELES v. & Best Built’s licenses were valid until June 30. 97918 September 18. 11. 1988).SPS. 1992 . C t. Annex B. 86695 September 3. ET A L. Delgado Bros. Hence. No. 1992 CONSOLIDA TED PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES INC.R.R. 12.D. COURT OF A PPEA LS. c hanr obl e s v i r t ual l aw l i br ar y WHEREFORE.R. 51 C T. No. ET A L. or three days after the deadline. COURT OF A PPEA LS. COURT OF A PPEA LS. c hanr obl e s l aw G. COURT OF A PPEA LS. NA TIONA L LA BOR RELA TIONS COMMISSION. or whoever among them is still incumbent therein. ET AL. INC. ET A L.000. A regulation of the matter which excludes any of these factors destroys the distinctive character of the system and thwarts and purpose of its adoption. 1992 . as private respondents now claim. IB 13 1. v. G. MANUEL R.com/cralaw/1992septemberdecisions. 85403-06 September 23. June 6. v.R. 319. *** B. G. What is involved here is noncompliance with the procedural rules on bidding which required strict observance. v.chanrobles. thus defeating the guaranty that contractors be placed on equal footing when they submit their bids.R.S. which states: j gc : c hanr obl e s . 1992 .PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. No. COURT OF A PPEA LS. No. C altex Phil. 90254 September 24. 1992 . the C ourt cannot close its eyes to the evident bad faith that characterized the conduct of the private respondents. G.A NTONIO T. 39 S. that the subject project has already been "100% completed as to the Engineering Standard. and the party to whom it is awarded cannot benefit from it. compensatory damage may not be awarded to them. The other petitioner. ph "Art. COURT OF A PPEA LS. Penachos.ENRIQUE KHO. is not entitled to relief because it admittedly submitted its prequalification documents on December 5. No. p. TIONGSON v. pp. ET A L. ET A L. G. MENDOZA v. v. These damages are to assessed against the private respondents in the amount of P10. ET A L. 1992 . GENOVEVA NA DA YA G.. 372. 859. 94461 September 30. 1992 INTERNA TIONA L CORPORA TE BA NK. 1992 . http://www. ET A L.LEA NDRO I. 1992 . No. v. As there is no evidence of the actual loss suffered by the petitioners. an opportunity for competition and a basis for exact comparison of bids. 249. CA RLOS C..R. : SEPTEMBER 1992 . INC. No. v.R. 2221.R. Griño-Aquino. as not covered by the prohibition in P.R. 1992 .R. ET A L. concur. v. Endnotes: G. v. and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. No. 142 SC RA 180. G. (Exh. 1992 . 1992 . 100574 September 28.PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. the plans and specifications which are the contractors’ guide to an intelligent bid. ET A L. Nos. JONA THA N J. 3. 1992 . namely Manuel R. 1818 was not intended to shield from judicial scrutiny irregularities committed by administrative agencies such as the anomalies above described. 1992 . 134.R. 44-48. however. 96 Phil. 186 SC RA 704. P & O respectively: both were marked on December 28.PHILIPPINE SUP… G. Rollo p. JR. v. Vol. No. 4.D. 1. ET A L. No. 1988.PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. 9. 13.R. ET A L. ET A L. No. 97431 September 28.

ET AL. Gleason. Dec. San Francisco. : SEPTEMBER 1992 .com/cralaw/1992septemberdecisions. Grant C ountry (c. v. Wagner v. 212 Iowa 929. Richardson v.E. JR. ₱1. MANUEL R. 121 N. 4. 231 N. 196 Wis. PENACHOS. C ity of C reston. Zottman v.2017 ChanRobles Publishing Com pany | Disclaim er | E-m ail Restrictions http://www. People v.PHILIPPINE SUP… Flying to Boracay? 14. 81 Am.Y. 631.php?id=609 Go! ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles. Et.. Al.W.chanrobles.MARIA ELENA MALAGA. 220 N.1/2/2017 G. 705. 86695 September 3. 207. 96.com™ R ED 6/6 . 495.c. Milwaukee. 20 C al. 96. v.W. Johnson C ountry Savings Bank. No. 1992 .288 Grab Your Tickets Online Now! airasia. 328.com Ads by Google Ads by Google Ads by Google Bid Contract GR L People GR GR V Jurisprudence GR 2 GR VS GR Court Cases Court Records Back to Home | Back to Main QUICK SEARCH 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Main Indices of the Library ---> Copyright © 1998 .R. 25 N.) 27 F. ET AL.