Filipinas Engineering v. Ferrer
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In preparation for the national elections of November 11, 1969, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) issued Invitation to Bid No. 127 for the manufacture and delivery of 11,000 units of voting booths. Filipinas Engineering and Machine Shop (Filipinas) and Acme Steel Manufacturing Company (Acme) were among the seventeen bidders. Filipinas bid P128.00 per unit for one sample and P123.00 for another. Acme bid P78.00 per unit for a steel voting booth. The COMELEC Bidding Committee recommended awarding the contract to Filipinas, noting Acme's sample was not rust-proof and was heavy. However, after an ocular inspection, the COMELEC Commissioners awarded the contract to Acme on October 9, 1969, subject to Acme improving its sample to be rust-proof. A Purchase Order was issued to Acme on October 11, 1969, which Acme accepted. Procedural History: On October 16, 1969, Filipinas filed an injunction suit with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila, seeking to enjoin the COMELEC and Acme. The CFI denied Filipinas' application for a writ of preliminary injunction. Subsequently, the COMELEC filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the CFI lacked jurisdiction and the complaint stated no cause of action. The CFI dismissed the case, and Filipinas' motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Filipinas appealed the CFI's dismissal orders to the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the lower court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a suit involving an order of the COMELEC dealing with an award of contract arising from its invitation to bid. Whether or not Filipinas, the losing bidder, has a cause of action under the premises against the COMELEC and Acme, the winning bidder, to enjoin them from complying with their contract.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding it without merit and moot and academic. The Court held that the lower court did not have jurisdiction to review the COMELEC's award of contract, as such an order is administrative in nature and not a final order reviewable by certiorari. The Court further ruled that Filipinas, as a losing bidder, had no cause of action to enjoin the contract, as the COMELEC reserved the right to reject any or all bids and Filipinas failed to prove malice or fraud.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue of jurisdiction: The Supreme Court affirmed that it has exclusive jurisdiction to review on certiorari final decisions, orders, or rulings of the COMELEC relative to the conduct of elections and enforcement of election laws, as provided by the Constitution and relevant statutes. However, the Court clarified that an order of the COMELEC awarding a contract to a private party, resulting from its choice among proposals submitted in response to an invitation to bid, does not constitute a "final order" exclusively and directly appealable to the Supreme Court on certiorari. Such an award is considered an incident of the COMELEC's inherent administrative functions over the conduct of elections, rather than its quasi-judicial functions. Therefore, the Court held that the COMELEC resolution awarding the contract was not issued pursuant to its quasi-judicial functions, and thus, no direct and exclusive appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court lies from such an order. Any question arising from such an order may be properly taken up in an ordinary civil action before the trial courts, which possess jurisdiction over such matters. On the second issue of cause of action: The Supreme Court ruled that Filipinas, the losing bidder, had no cause of action to enjoin the COMELEC from pursuing its contract with Acme, the winning bidder. While the lower court might have jurisdiction over controversies dealing with the COMELEC's award of contracts, the petitioner failed to substantiate the existence of malice or fraud on the part of the public respondents in the challenged award. The Invitation to Bid expressly stipulated that the COMELEC reserved the right to reject any or all bids, to waive any information therein, or to accept such bid as may in its discretion be considered most reasonable and advantageous. The invitation was merely a call for proposals, and the COMELEC was not under a legal obligation to accept any bid. Consequently, Filipinas, whose bid was not the winning bid, had no cause of action to demand damages or unrealized profits, as no contractual relation arose from its bid alone, absent an acceptance by resolution of the COMELEC.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to review on certiorari final decisions, orders, or rulings of the COMELEC relative to the conduct of elections and enforcement of election laws. However, an order of the COMELEC awarding a contract to a private party as a result of its choice among various proposals submitted in response to its invitation to bid does not fall within the purview of a "final order" exclusively and directly appealable to the Supreme Court on certiorari, as it is an incident of its inherent administrative functions, not its quasi-judicial functions. Any question arising from such an order may be taken up in an ordinary civil action before the trial courts. Furthermore, a losing bidder has no cause of action to enjoin the COMELEC from pursuing its contract with the winning bidder if the COMELEC reserved the right to reject any or all bids and no malice or fraud is proven.