MWSS v.

Vasquez
G.R. No. 109113 – Jan. 25, 1995
En Banc | J. Vitug

Digest Author: Mozo, Miguel

Topic: Control of Administrative Actions

   
Case Summary: Private respondent Philippine Large Diameter Pressure Pipes Manufacturer’s Association
(PLDPPMA) filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman on the public bidding conducted by MWSS
for projects APM-01 and APM-02 of its Angat Water Supply Optimization Project (AWSOP), which aims to
provide 1.3 million liters of water daily to about 3.8 million residents in the metropolitan area. The letter of
complaint accused the MWSS of an apparent plan even before the bidding to favor suppliers of fiberglass pipes
and urged the Ombudsman to conduct an investigation to hold in abeyance the award of contracts.

The Fact finding and Intelligence Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman issued an injunction directed to the
Board of Trustees of the MWSS (1) to set aside the recommendation of its Pre-qualification, Bids, and Awards
Committee for Construction Services and Technical Equipment (PBAC-CSTE) that contract no. APM-01 be
given to a contractor offering fiberglass pipes and (2) to instead award the contract to a complying and
responsive bidder.

Petitioner MWSS assailed the order of the Ombudsman for lack of jurisdiction of the Ombudsman over
PLDPPMA’s complaint and for issuing the challenged order contrary to PD 1818 prohibiting the issuance of
restraining orders/injunctions in cases involving government infrastructure projects.

The issue is WoN the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over PLDPPMA’s complaint and has the power to issue
orders directing the Board of Trustees of the MWSS to set aside the recommendation of PBAC-CSTE and to
instead award the contract to a complying and responsive bidder and the Supreme Court ruled in the negative.

While recognizing the investigatory and public assistance duties of the Ombudsman, the assailed orders were an
undue interference in the adjudicatory responsibility of the MWSS Board of Trustees rather than a mere
directive requiring the proper observance of and compliance with the law. The Fact finding and Intelligence
Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman reveals a predisposition against the use of fiberglass pipes, a technical,
rather than a legal matter.

As a GOCC, MWSS is charged with the construction, maintenance, and operation of waterwork system to
insure uninterrupted and adequate supply and distribution of potable water. Therefore, it is the agency that
should be in the best position to evaluate the feasibility of the projections of the bidders and to decide which bid
is compatible with its development plans. The exercise of this discretion to reject a bid and to award contracts,
which is a purely technical matter, is vested in the MWSS entrusted with such function that even courts or the
Ombudsman cannot unduly interfere with.

Doctrines/Laws Involved: 

Felipe Ysmael, Jr. & Co. Inc. vs. Deputy Executive Secretary: "[W]hile the administration grapples with the
complex and multifarious problems caused by unbridled exploitation of these resources, the judiciary will stand
clear. A long line of cases establish the basic rule that the courts will not interfere in matters which are
addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming
under the special technical knowledge and training of such agencies."

Bureau Veritas v. Office of the President: "The discretion to accept or reject a bid and award contracts is vested
in the Government agencies entrusted with that function. The discretion given to the authorities on this matter is
of such wide latitude that the Courts will not interfere therewith, unless it is apparent that it is used as a shield to
a fraudulent award."

FACTS:
1. Private respondent Philippine Large Diameter Pressure Pipes Manufacturer’s Association (PLDPPMA)
filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman on the public bidding conducted by MWSS for
projects APM-01 and APM-02 of its Angat Water Supply Optimization Project (AWSOP), which aims
to provide 1.3 million liters of water daily to about 3.8 million residents in the metropolitan area. The
letter of complaint accused the MWSS of an apparent plan even before the bidding to favor suppliers of
fiberglass pipes and urged the Ombudsman to conduct an investigation to hold in abeyance the award of
contracts.

2. The Fact finding and Intelligence Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman issued an injunction directed
to the Board of Trustees of the MWSS (1) to set aside the recommendation of its Pre-qualification, Bids,
and Awards Committee for Construction Services and Technical Equipment (PBAC-CSTE) that
contract no. APM-01 be given to a contractor offering fiberglass pipes and (2) to instead award the
contract to a complying and responsive bidder.

3. Petitioner MWSS assailed the order of the Ombudsman for lack of jurisdiction of the Ombudsman over
PLDPPMA’s complaint and for issuing the challenged order contrary to PD 1818 prohibiting the
issuance of restraining orders/injunctions in cases involving government infrastructure projects.

ISSUES + HELD/RATIO:
1. W/N the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over PLDPPMA’s complaint and has the power to issue orders
directing the Board of Trustees of the MWSS to set aside the recommendation of PBAC-CSTE and to instead
award the contract to a complying and responsive bidder. – NO.
● While recognizing the investigatory and public assistance duties of the Ombudsman, the assailed orders
were an undue interference in the adjudicatory responsibility of the MWSS Board of Trustees rather
than a mere directive requiring the proper observance of and compliance with the law. The Fact finding
and Intelligence Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman reveals a predisposition against the use of
fiberglass pipes, a technical, rather than a legal matter.

● As a GOCC, MWSS is charged with the construction, maintenance, and operation of waterwork system
to insure uninterrupted and adequate supply and distribution of potable water. Therefore, it is the agency
that should be in the best position to evaluate the feasibility of the projections of the bidders and to
decide which bid is compatible with its development plans. The exercise of this discretion to reject a bid
and to award contracts, which is a purely technical matter, is vested in the MWSS entrusted with such
function that even courts or the Ombudsman cannot unduly interfere with.

DISPOSITIVE:

SEPARATE OPINIONS: (if required)

NOTES: