G.R. No. L-31455 February 28, 1985
FILIPINAS ENGINEERING AND MACHINE SHOP, petitioner, vs. HON. JAIME N. FERRER, LINO PATAJO and CESAR MIRAFLOR as Commissioners of the Commission on Elections; COMELEC BIDDING COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN EMILIO AGUILA and MEMBERS PACIENCIO BALLON, ALEJANDRO MACARANAS, TOMAS MALLONGA and ERNESTO LOMBOS; HON. JUDGE JOSE LEUTERIO of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch 11 and ACME STEEL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, respondents.

FACTS

The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) issued an invitation to bid for the manufacture and delivery of 11,000 voting booths. Among the bidders were petitioner Filipinas Engineering and Machine Shop and private respondent Acme Steel Manufacturing Company. The COMELEC Bidding Committee initially recommended awarding the contract to Filipinas, noting that Acme’s sample was made of painted black iron sheets and was heavy, thus not meeting the “rust proof or rust resistant” specification. However, after an ocular inspection, the COMELEC Commissioners issued a resolution awarding the contract to Acme, as it submitted the lowest bid, subject to the condition that Acme improve its sample to be rust-proof or rust-resistant.
Filipinas filed an injunction suit in the Court of First Instance of Manila to enjoin the COMELEC and Acme from implementing the award. The respondent judge denied the application for a preliminary injunction and later dismissed the case upon the public respondents’ motion, prompting this appeal by certiorari. Notably, the 1969 national elections proceeded, and Acme had already complied with its contract, rendering the case moot.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) whether the lower court had jurisdiction over a suit involving a COMELEC order awarding a contract from a public bidding, and (2) whether Filipinas, as the losing bidder, had a cause of action to enjoin the contract between COMELEC and Acme.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for being moot and academic but resolved the legal issues due to their importance. On jurisdiction, the Court held that the lower court had jurisdiction. While the 1935 Constitution granted COMELEC exclusive charge over the enforcement of election laws and the power to decide administrative questions affecting elections, its decisions were subject to review only by the Supreme Court. However, the act of awarding a contract for voting booths was considered a proprietary or business function, not an exercise of its quasi-judicial or administrative powers over elections. Therefore, such act was not within its constitutional exclusive jurisdiction and could be subject to ordinary court review.
On the cause of action, the Court ruled that Filipinas had none. A bid in a public auction is merely an offer, and the act of bidding does not create a perfected contract or vest any right in the bidder until the offer is accepted. The COMELEC reserved the right to reject any and all bids. The award to Acme, despite its initial non-compliance, was conditioned on making the sample rust-proof, which was within COMELEC’s sound discretion. The mere submission of the lowest bid by a responsible bidder does not create a vested right to the contract, especially when the awarding authority reserves the right to reject bids. Thus, Filipinas could not compel the COMELEC to accept its bid or to annul the award to Acme.