Political Law

Department of Health v. Hon. Bonifacio Pascua et. al.

GR No. 212894/ 2123820/ 213889, March 4, 2020, SECOND DIVISION (Inting,

J.)

DOCTRINE: A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable
controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of
no practical use or value. Generally, courts decline jurisdiction over such case or
dismiss it on ground of mootness.

Facts: The controversy arose from the bidding of the infrastructure project Dr. Jose
Fabilla Memorial Hospital, where out of the four bidders only three were declared
eligible including respondent J.D. Legazpi Construction (JDLC). The Central Office
Bids and Awards Committee informed JDLC that it was the second lowest bidder
prompting the DOH to advice the review of the financing options for the project and
cancellation of the procurement of the project. As a result, JDLC filed a petition for
Issuance of Writ of Mandamus, latter on coupled with certiorari and prayer for urgent
issuance of temporary restraining order, assailing the cancellation of the procurement;
RTC judge, without going to the merits of the case granted the prayer temporary
restraining order.

Issue: Did Respondent judge commit grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the
TRO and award of the project to JDLC?

Ruling: Yes, but it has been rendered moot; thus, a decision declaring illegality of the
act of respondent judge is of no practical use. The issuance of the TRO is in violation
of RA 8975 which bans the lower courts from issuing restraining orders against
government infrastructure projects. Nevertheless, the RTC committed reversible error
in ordering the award which has been rendered moot by the issuances of the DOH and
the Notice to Proceed with the phases of the construction project.

However, the case ceased to be a justiciable controversy by virtue of the DOH’s

issuance of the Notices to Proceed Phase I and II of the Project in favthior of
respondent JDLC. As a consequence of the award of the Project in favor of respondent
JDLC, the latter already commenced the modernization of the subject hospital. To
render the act illegal is of no practical use since the issue is already moot.

1
Political Law