GR 167806; (June, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 167806 ; June 26, 2006
PHIL PHARMAWEALTH, INC., Petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE CHILDREN’S MEDICAL CENTER BIDS AND AWARDS COMMITTEE, BENJAMIN T. LIM, EMMA A. MARIANO, NENA U. CALDEO AND DAHLIA CARRIOS, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Phil Pharmawealth, Inc. (PPI) sought to participate in a public bidding for medical supplies conducted by respondent Philippine Children’s Medical Center Bids and Awards Committee (PCMC-BAC). On November 17, 2004, PCMC-BAC verbally informed PPI’s representatives that it was ineligible to bid due to a one-year suspension imposed by PCMC’s Therapeutics Committee over a substandard product. PPI requested a written copy of this order but received none. The bidding proceeded without PPI’s participation.
PPI filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus with Damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC dismissed the petition because PPI failed to attach certified true copies of the assailed decision or order, a requirement for a certiorari petition. PPI’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether the RTC correctly dismissed PPI’s petition for certiorari for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for non-compliance with procedural rules.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the RTC’s dismissal. The Court held that PPI prematurely resorted to judicial action without first exhausting available administrative remedies. Under Section 23.3 of the Implementing Rules of Republic Act No. 9184 (the Government Procurement Reform Act), a bidder declared ineligible has seven calendar days from verbal notification to file a request for reconsideration with the BAC. PPI, notified on November 17, 2004, had until November 24 to seek reconsideration but failed to do so.
This failure to file a motion for reconsideration with the BAC precluded PPI from subsequently appealing to the head of the procuring entity, a mandatory step under Section 55.1 of the same rules. Judicial recourse via certiorari under Rule 65 is permissible only after these administrative protests are completed with finality. The rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies is fundamental; it allows agencies to correct errors within their competence and promotes orderly procedure. PPI did not demonstrate that its case fell under any established exception to this rule, such as when the act is patently illegal or there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Consequently, its direct resort to the RTC was procedurally infirm.