GR 167057; (April, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 167057 April 11, 2012
NERWIN INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. PNOC-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, and ESTER R. GUERZON, Chairman, Bids and Awards Committee, Respondents.
FACTS
Nerwin Industries Corporation was the lowest complying bidder for a National Electrification Administration (NEA) contract for woodpoles and crossarms. Despite a recommendation for award, NEA’s Board reduced the contract quantity by 50%. Nerwin protested this reduction. Subsequently, respondent PNOC-Energy Development Corporation (PNOC-EDC) issued an invitation to bid for wooden poles for a separate rural electrification project.
Nerwin filed a civil action in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila against PNOC-EDC, alleging that PNOC-EDC’s new bidding was an attempt to subject a portion of the items from the original NEA contract to another bidding process. Nerwin prayed for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to enjoin PNOC-EDC’s proposed bidding. The RTC granted Nerwin’s application and issued a TRO. PNOC-EDC challenged this order.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court acted contrary to law in issuing a Temporary Restraining Order against the government bidding conducted by PNOC-Energy Development Corporation.
RULING
Yes, the RTC acted contrary to law. The Supreme Court ruled that the issuance of the TRO was a clear violation of Republic Act No. 8975 . This law expressly prohibits any court, except the Supreme Court, from issuing any TRO, preliminary injunction, or preliminary mandatory injunction against the bidding or awarding of any contract or project of the National Government. The prohibition is absolute and covers any government infrastructure project.
The legal logic is grounded on public policy to prevent unnecessary delays in government projects crucial to national development. PNOC-EDC, as a government-owned or -controlled corporation, is an instrumentality of the National Government. Its bidding process for the Samar Rural Electrification Project (O-ILAW Project) falls squarely within the category of a National Government project protected by R.A. 8975. The RTC, by issuing the TRO, disregarded this statutory prohibition. The law leaves no discretion to lower courts; it imposes a direct ban to ensure government projects proceed unhampered by frivolous or dilatory court orders. Therefore, the RTC’s order was issued without jurisdiction and is void.