Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government v. Berenguer
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The Philippine National Police (PNP) entered into two contracts with Motorola, Inc. for the supply, delivery, and installation of a Multi-Trunked Radio System (MTRS) for Phases IV and V. These contracts were approved by the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) Undersecretary, but were subsequently put on hold and allegedly cancelled by him. An independent citizens' committee investigated the matter and recommended the implementation of the contracts, also finding that the cancellation constituted a criminal act. This led to a complaint and the filing of an Information against the Undersecretary before the Sandiganbayan. 2. Procedural History: Following the Saguisag Committee Report and the Ombudsman's resolution, efforts were made to implement the contracts. However, a citizen and taxpayer, Tomas Jose Berenguer, filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to prevent the delivery of the MTRS equipment, arguing the contracts lacked presidential approval. The RTC denied the prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and dismissed the petition. Berenguer then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which issued a TRO and later an injunctive writ. The Court of Appeals eventually granted the petition, set aside the RTC's dismissal, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, which was denied. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, including the Secretary of the DILG and officials of the PNP, filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court to assail the Court of Appeals' decision. However, the PNP later requested the withdrawal of the petition due to the urgent need for communications equipment and the possibility of renegotiating the contracts. The DILG also interposed no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation and Motion to withdraw the petition. The Supreme Court granted the motion to dismiss the petition, without prejudice to the disposition of the original civil case before the trial court, and directed the petitioners to furnish the respondent with copies of the renegotiated contracts and related documents.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court should grant the motion to withdraw the Petition for Review on Certiorari. Whether the dismissal of the Petition for Review on Certiorari should be with or without prejudice to the disposition of Civil Case No. Q-00-41153.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the motion and dismissed the Petition for Review on Certiorari. The dismissal was made without prejudice to the disposition of Civil Case No. Q-00-41153, which was ordered remanded to the trial court by the Court of Appeals. Petitioners were directed to furnish respondent with copies of the relevant documents concerning the renegotiation of the subject contracts, including the renegotiated contracts.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Motion to Withdraw: The Court granted the motion to withdraw the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the petitioners. This action was prompted by communications from the PNP and DILG, highlighting the PNP's urgent need for communications equipment and the parties' willingness to renegotiate the MTRS Phases IV and V contracts. The Court acknowledged the efforts towards renegotiation and the respondent's concurrence with the dismissal, provided the Court of Appeals' decision was maintained. The Court recognized the respondent's role in safeguarding taxpayer interests and the constitutional mandate for access to official acts and transactions. On the Effect of Dismissal: The dismissal of the present Petition for Review on Certiorari was explicitly made without prejudice to the further disposition of Civil Case No. Q-00-41153. This means that the issues raised in the original case before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and subsequently remanded by the Court of Appeals (CA) are not resolved by the Supreme Court's dismissal of the petition. Any motions or further proceedings concerning Civil Case No. Q-00-41153 must be addressed directly to the trial court, which retains jurisdiction over the matter. The Supreme Court's action only pertains to the petition filed before it, not the underlying civil case.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for review, holding that the dismissal of the petition was without prejudice to the disposition of the remanded civil case before the trial court. The Court also directed the petitioners to furnish the respondent with copies of the renegotiated contracts and related documents.