Cervantes v. Aquino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, comprising patients and employees of the Philippine Orthopedic Center (POC), health professionals, and legislators, filed a special civil action for Certiorari and Prohibition seeking to annul and set aside the proposed privatization or commercialization of the POC and the subsequent award of the Modernization of the POC Project (MPOC Project) to private respondents. They argued that the privatization would prejudice indigent patients and violate their constitutional right to health. The MPOC Project involved the construction of a new 700-bed capacity specialty hospital within the National Kidney and Transplant Institute Compound, to be implemented through a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) arrangement under Republic Act No. 6957, as amended by RA 7718. Procedural History: The Modernization of the Philippine Orthopedic Center - Pre-Qualification, Bids and Awards Committee (MPOC-PBAC) issued an invitation to bid. After a pre-qualification conference, several prospective bidders were identified. On June 4, 2013, the Consortium of Megawide Construction Company and World Citi Medical Center (Consortium) submitted the sole proposal. The proposal was approved by the NEDA Board, and a Notice of Award was issued to Megawide. Subsequently, the Department of Health (DOH) executed a Build-Operate-Transfer Agreement (BOT Agreement) with the Consortium. The Petition: Petitioners filed the present petition seeking to annul the privatization of the POC and the award of the MPOC Project, and to permanently prohibit respondents from implementing the project. They imputed grave abuse of discretion against public respondents for allegedly relinquishing the duty to provide basic social services to a private entity and for expanding the application of the BOT Law to cover privatization of health services. Petitioners contended that the privatization would reduce the number of beds for service patients, violating the constitutional right to health and RA 1939. They also argued that it violated employees' security of tenure and that the BOT Law was illegally expanded to include health services.
Issue(s)
Whether public respondents gravely abused their discretion in entering into the MPOC Project with private respondents. Whether the petition has become moot and academic due to the termination of the BOT Agreement.
Ruling
The Court resolved to DISMISS the petition for being moot and academic. The dismissal is warranted due to the supervening "Notice of Termination" of the BOT Agreement served by private respondents upon the DOH on November 10, 2015. The termination was based on alleged delays in the DOH's performance, specifically the failure to make the Project Site available and deliver a Certificate of Possession within 180 days from the Signing Date, and the delay in procuring the services of an Independent Consultant within 90 days from the Signing Date, both exceeding the 180-day period stipulated in the BOT Agreement.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court did not explicitly address the issue of whether public respondents gravely abused their discretion in entering into the MPOC Project with private respondents because the petition was dismissed on the ground of mootness. On the issue of mootness due to termination of the BOT Agreement: The Court found that the petition had indeed become moot and academic by virtue of the supervening termination of the BOT Agreement. A case or issue is considered moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that an adjudication of the case or a declaration on the issue would be of no practical value or use. In such instances, there is no actual substantial relief which a petitioner would be entitled to, and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition. Courts generally decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on the ground of mootness because the judgment will not serve any useful purpose or have any practical legal effect because, in the nature of things, it cannot be enforced. In this case, the action for certiorari and prohibition filed by petitioners was mooted by the termination of the BOT Agreement. The staleness of the claims became manifest considering the reliefs sought by petitioners, namely, to annul and set aside the BOT Agreement for the modernization of the POC and to permanently enjoin respondents from implementing the MPOC Project, which were hinged on the existence of the BOT Agreement. The eventual termination of the BOT Agreement rendered the resolution of the issues relating to the prayers for certiorari and prohibition of no practical or legal effect. Simply stated, petitioners in this case would no longer be entitled to any actual substantial relief regardless of this Court's disposition on the merits of the present petition. Therefore, the petition was dismissed on the ground of mootness.
Main Doctrine
A case becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy due to supervening events, rendering any adjudication of the case or declaration on the issue of no practical value or use. In such instances, courts generally decline jurisdiction or dismiss the case on the ground of mootness.