First United Constructors Corp. v. Poro Point Management Corp.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Poro Point Management Corporation (PPMC) approved a contract for the Upgrading of the San Fernando Airport Phase I. The Special Bids & Awards Committee (SBAC) pre-qualified three contractors: First United Constructors Corporation (FUCC), C.M. Pancho Construction, Inc., and EEI-New Kanlaon Construction, Inc. Joint Venture. C.M. Pancho was disqualified for insufficient experience, and EEI-New Kanlaon JV for lacking a special joint venture license. FUCC's bid received a failing mark due to incomplete submission of an automated weather observation system and unsigned pages in its proposal. FUCC's motion for reconsideration was denied, and its subsequent protest to the PPMC Head, Atty. Felix S. Racadio, was also dismissed for lack of merit. The protest fee paid by FUCC was ordered forfeited. Procedural History: SBAC scheduled a re-bidding. FUCC filed a petition for injunction with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to stop the re-bidding, but the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued was lifted due to RA 8975. The re-bidding proceeded, and the contract was awarded to Satrap Construction Company, Inc. (SCCI). FUCC filed an amended petition with the RTC to enjoin the project implementation, but later moved for its dismissal, which the RTC granted without prejudice. FUCC then filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court. The Petition: FUCC sought to annul the re-bidding, the award to SCCI, and the notice to proceed. It also prayed for the permanent enjoining of the contract implementation and for the declaration of FUCC as the winning bidder. FUCC alleged grave abuse of discretion by SBAC and PPMC in disqualifying its bid, denying its protest, conducting the re-bidding, and awarding the contract to SCCI.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari was filed within the reglementary period. Whether FUCC violated the doctrine of judicial hierarchy. Whether the SBAC and PPMC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying FUCC's bid, denying its protest, conducting the re-bidding, and awarding the contract to SCCI.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision of the PPMC is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition for certiorari: The Court held that FUCC received the PPMC decision on March 27, 2007, but filed its petition for certiorari only on July 30, 2007, which is beyond the 60-day reglementary period provided under Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, it was "too late in the day" for FUCC to assail the PPMC decision through this petition. On the violation of the doctrine of judicial hierarchy: The Court found that FUCC violated the doctrine of judicial hierarchy by filing the petition for certiorari directly with the Supreme Court. Section 58 of RA 9184 clearly states that court action should be resorted to only after the protest mechanism is completed, and petitions for certiorari against the decisions of the head of the procuring agency should be filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). While the RTC and the Supreme Court have concurrent jurisdiction, direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction requires special and important reasons, which FUCC failed to provide. On grave abuse of discretion: The Court ruled that there was no showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of SBAC and PPMC. The invitation to bid contained a reservation for PPMC to reject any bid, and the discretion to accept or reject bids is vested in the procuring entity. FUCC failed to present any proof of collusion or unfairness, injustice, caprice, or arbitrariness in the award to SCCI. The presumption of regularity of official action of public officers was upheld. The Court reiterated that it will not interfere with executive or legislative discretion exercised within constitutional boundaries unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, which implies a capricious, arbitrary, and whimsical exercise of power.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari assailing a decision of the head of a procuring entity must be filed within the 60-day reglementary period from notice of the decision, and must adhere to the doctrine of judicial hierarchy, with direct recourse to the Supreme Court only allowed under exceptional circumstances.