Dynamic Builders v. Presbitero
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Municipality of Valladolid, Negros Occidental, initiated a bidding process for the construction of a 1,050-lineal-meter rubble concrete seawall, known as the "Construction Shoreline Protection Project." Six contractors participated in the pre-bid conference, but only four submitted bids after three withdrew. Dynamic Builders & Construction Co. (Phil.), Inc. (Dynamic Builders) submitted the lowest bid at P29,750,000.00. However, the Bids and Awards Committee, after receiving a "NO OBJECTION" letter from the World Bank through the LOGOFIND project, issued Resolution No. 7 on April 21, 2006, awarding the contract to HLJ Construction and Enterprise for P31,922,420.37. Dynamic Builders was subsequently informed that its bid was found to be "not substantially responsive" due to a negative Financial Contracting Capability. Procedural History: Dynamic Builders sought reconsideration of the Bids and Awards Committee's decision, which was denied. They then filed a formal protest with Mayor Ricardo P. Presbitero, Jr., which was also dismissed. Subsequently, Dynamic Builders filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Regional Trial Court of Bago City, assailing the Mayor's decision and resolution. Simultaneously, Dynamic Builders filed the present Petition for prohibition with an application for a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued a status quo order on September 18, 2006. Respondents argued that Dynamic Builders engaged in forum shopping and splitting of causes of action, and that prohibition was not the proper remedy as the project was already underway. The Petition: Dynamic Builders filed a Petition for prohibition with an application for a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the Mayor's decision and the implementation of the contract awarded to HLJ Construction and Enterprise. They argued that Article XVII, Section 58 of Republic Act No. 9184, in conjunction with Presidential Decree No. 1818 and Republic Act No. 8975, implicitly allowed simultaneous petitions before the Regional Trial Court and the Supreme Court, and that only the Supreme Court could issue injunctive relief for local government infrastructure projects. They also contended that they were illegally deprived of their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection, and incorporated arguments from their Regional Trial Court petition regarding the denial of due process, violations of R.A. No. 9184, the responsiveness of their bid, and their entitlement to the contract.
Issue(s)
Whether Article XVII, Section 58 of Republic Act No. 9184 contemplates simultaneous filing of a petition for prohibition seeking injunctive reliefs from the Supreme Court and a petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court; and whether petitioner violated the rules against the splitting of a cause of action, multiplicity of suits, and forum shopping. Whether petitioner violated the doctrine on hierarchy of courts. Whether petitioner resorted to an improper remedy when it filed a petition for prohibition with the Supreme Court. Whether Article XVII, Section 58 of Republic Act No. 9184, in relation to Republic Act No. 8975 and Presidential Decree No. 1818, allows Regional Trial Courts to issue injunctive relief subject to the presence of certain conditions. Whether respondents violated the Supreme Court's September 18, 2006 status quo Order.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition for prohibition and the Petition to Cite Respondents for Contempt for lack of merit. The Court held that the simultaneous filing of petitions before the RTC and the Supreme Court constitutes splitting of a cause of action, multiplicity of suits, and forum shopping, and violates the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts. Prohibition is a preventive remedy and does not lie for acts already accomplished. The Court also clarified the conditions under which Regional Trial Courts may issue injunctive relief against government infrastructure projects.
Ratio Decidendi
On the simultaneous filing of petitions and violation of rules against splitting of cause of action, multiplicity of suits, and forum shopping: The Court ruled that Article XVII, Section 58 of Republic Act No. 9184 does not envision simultaneous resort to remedies before the Regional Trial Court and the Supreme Court. Filing a Petition for Certiorari before the RTC assailing the Mayor's decision and resolution, and simultaneously filing a Petition for prohibition before the Supreme Court seeking injunctive reliefs to enjoin the same decision and resolution, constitutes splitting of a cause of action and violates the rules against multiplicity of suits and forum shopping. The Court emphasized that a party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action and that forum shopping involves resorting to two different forums to obtain the same relief, creating the possibility of conflicting decisions. The petitioner sought the same relief (nullification of the Mayor's decision and resolution) through two separate petitions filed before separate courts. On the violation of the doctrine on hierarchy of courts: The Court reiterated that while the Regional Trial Court and the Supreme Court have concurrent jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus, parties must adhere to the principle of hierarchy of courts. Direct resort to the Supreme Court is allowed only when there are exceptionally compelling reasons or when the nature of the issues involved warrants it. In this case, the proper recourse from the decision of the head of the procuring entity was to file a petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court, not directly with the Supreme Court, as the issues raised were within the competence of the lower courts. On whether petitioner resorted to an improper remedy: The Court held that prohibition is a preventive remedy and will not lie for acts already accomplished. The implementation of the Construction Shoreline Protection Project had already commenced and was ongoing at the time the petition was filed. Therefore, the remedy of prohibition was improper as it cannot provide a remedy for acts already executed or accomplished. The issue of whether these acts infringed on petitioner's rights was also interrelated with the issues raised in the Petition before the trial court, further emphasizing the splitting of a cause of action. On whether Regional Trial Courts may issue injunctive relief: The Court clarified that while Republic Act No. 8975 generally prohibits lower courts from issuing TROs or injunctions against government infrastructure projects, it provides an exception when the matter is of extreme urgency involving a constitutional issue, such that unless a TRO is issued, grave injustice and irreparable injury will arise. For local government infrastructure projects, Regional Trial Courts may issue provisional injunctive reliefs when there are compelling constitutional violations, a clear right in esse, a need to prevent grave and irreparable injuries, demonstrable urgency, and when public interest in restraining the project outweighs the inconvenience to the awardee and the public benefits of completion. The Court noted that Republic Act No. 8975 only mentions national government projects, implying that its prohibition might not strictly apply to local government projects, but the conditions for injunctive relief remain stringent. On whether respondents violated the status quo order: The Court dismissed the petition to cite respondents for contempt. The respondents argued in good faith that the 'status quo' referred to the ongoing construction at the time the status quo order was issued. The Court noted that the ordinary meaning of status quo is the existing state of affairs, and the project had been ongoing for four months when the petition was filed. The Court also cited that the status quo should generally be that existing at the time of the filing of the case, and that delay in government projects incurs additional costs and prejudices the public.
Main Doctrine
The simultaneous filing of a petition for prohibition seeking injunctive reliefs from the Supreme Court and a petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court, assailing the same decision and resolution on the same grounds, constitutes splitting of a cause of action, multiplicity of suits, and forum shopping, and violates the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts. Prohibition is a preventive remedy and will not lie for acts already accomplished.