Department of Health v. Pascua
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The controversy arose from the bidding of the infrastructure project for Dr. Jose Fabella Memorial Hospital (Fabella Hospital). After the Invitation to Bid was posted and bids were opened, Tokwing Construction Corporation was declared to have submitted the Lowest Calculated Bid but failed post-qualification. J.D. Legaspi Construction (JDLC) was then declared as having submitted the second Lowest Calculated Bid. Subsequently, COBAC resolved that JDLC had submitted the second Lowest Calculated and Responsive Bid. Thereafter, the Department of Health (DOH) was advised to review financing options, leading to the cancellation of the procurement for the project. Procedural History: JDLC filed a Petition for the Issuance of the Writ of Mandamus before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, assailing the cancellation of the procurement process and seeking the award of the Project to JDLC. The RTC issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) for 20 days enjoining the DOH from conducting a rebidding or award to a third party. Subsequently, the RTC granted JDLC's application for a writ of preliminary injunction, conditioned upon the posting of an injunctive bond. The RTC then rendered a Decision granting the writs of certiorari and mandamus in favor of JDLC, ordering the DOH to award the Project to JDLC as the lowest calculated and responsive bidder. The Petition: The DOH filed three petitions before the Supreme Court: G.R. No. 212894 (Petition for Certiorari assailing the TRO), G.R. No. 213820 (Petition for Certiorari assailing the Order granting the preliminary injunction and the Writ of Preliminary Injunction), and G.R. No. 213889 (Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the RTC Decision awarding the Project to JDLC). The DOH argued that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the TRO and preliminary injunction in violation of Republic Act No. 8975, which bans lower courts from issuing TROs against National Government Infrastructure Projects, and that its right to due process was violated.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and the Writ of Preliminary Injunction. Whether the RTC committed reversible error in granting the writs of certiorari and mandamus and ordering the DOH to award the Project to JDLC. Whether the petitions have become moot and academic due to supervening events.
Ruling
The petitions have become moot and academic. The Court dismissed G.R. No. 212894 and G.R. No. 213820 for being moot, and denied G.R. No. No. 213889 for being moot.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in issuing the TRO and Writ of Preliminary Injunction, and the reversible error in granting the writs of certiorari and mandamus: The Court held that any decision regarding the legality of the respondent judge's acts in issuing the TRO and preliminary injunction, and his subsequent decision awarding the Project to JDLC, would be of no practical use or value because the petitions have become moot. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in issuing the TRO and Writ of Preliminary Injunction, and the reversible error in granting the writs of certiorari and mandamus: The Court held that any decision regarding the legality of the respondent judge's acts in issuing the TRO and preliminary injunction, and his subsequent decision awarding the Project to JDLC, would be of no practical use or value because the petitions have become moot. On the mootness of the petitions: The Court held that the petitions have become moot and academic due to supervening events. These events include the issuance of a Notice to Proceed by the DOH in favor of JDLC on January 23, 2015, for the first phase of the Project, and the commencement of works by JDLC on May 31, 2015. Furthermore, JDLC reported an estimated 70% accomplishment of the Project. Additionally, a Notice to Proceed was issued for Phase II of the Project, with a contract amount of P713,868,550.65. The Court cited David v. Pres. Macapagal-Arroyo to define a moot and academic case as one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, rendering a declaration of no practical use or value. The Court found no exceptions to the general rule of declining jurisdiction over moot cases present in the instant petitions. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed or denied for being moot.
Main Doctrine
The petitions were dismissed for being moot and academic due to supervening events, specifically the issuance of Notices to Proceed for both phases of the infrastructure project and the commencement and substantial accomplishment of the works, rendering any decision on the legality of the lower court's orders moot and of no practical use or value.