GR 109113; (January, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 109113 . January 25, 1995.
CONCERNED OFFICIALS OF THE METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM (MWSS), petitioners, vs. HON. OMBUDSMAN CONRADO M. VASQUEZ AND MEMBERS OF THE PHILIPPINE LARGE DIAMETER PRESSURE PIPE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION (PLDPPMA), respondents.
FACTS
The Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) launched the Angat Water Supply Optimization Project (AWSOP), with phases APM-01 and APM-02, involving the installation of new watermains. The projects were funded by a Japanese loan, requiring international competitive bidding. The contract documents listed several permitted alternative pipe materials, including Fiberglass Pressure Pipe (FPP). The MWSS Pre-qualification, Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) pre-qualified eleven contractors. The Philippine Large Diameter Pressure Pipe Manufacturers Association (PLDPPMA), whose members manufacture traditional pipes like steel and ductile iron, sent multiple letters to MWSS requesting clarifications and suggesting changes to technical specifications to ensure a level playing field among pipe materials. MWSS issued several addenda incorporating some suggestions.
ISSUE
Whether the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the MWSS Board of Trustees to set aside the PBAC’s recommendation to award Contract APM-01 to a fiberglass pipe contractor and to instead award it to a “complying and responsive bidder.”
RULING
No, the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition and annulled the Ombudsman’s orders. The legal logic is anchored on the principle of non-interference in administrative discretion and the limited scope of the Ombudsman’s power to investigate. The award of government contracts through public bidding is primarily an administrative function. The MWSS PBAC, composed of technical experts, possesses the specialized competence to evaluate bids and determine the “lowest complying and responsive bidder” as mandated by P.D. No. 1594. Its recommendation, based on a detailed evaluation of the financial and technical merits of the bids, is entitled to great respect. The Ombudsman’s directive to award the contract to a different bidder constituted a substitution of judgment, encroaching upon the authority of the MWSS. The Ombudsman’s constitutional mandate is to investigate and prosecute, not to directly overturn or control the discretionary actions of administrative bodies in the absence of a clear showing of arbitrariness or illegality. The Court found no such arbitrariness in the PBAC’s evaluation, which was conducted in accordance with prescribed rules. Therefore, the Ombudsman’s orders were issued in excess of jurisdiction.