GR 178799; (January, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 178799 January 19, 2009
FIRST UNITED CONSTRUCTORS CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. PORO POINT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (PPMC), THE SPECIAL BIDS & AWARDS COMMITTEE (SBAC) of PPMC, ATTY. FELIX S. RACADIO, and SATRAP CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner First United Constructors Corporation (FUCC) was one of the pre-qualified bidders for the “Upgrading of the San Fernando Airport Project, Phase I” by respondent Poro Point Management Corporation (PPMC). Upon evaluation, FUCC’s technical proposal received a failing mark for failing to submit the automated weather observation system (AWOS) and because its authorized representative did not sign some pages of the narrative construction method and the tax returns. FUCC’s motion for reconsideration and subsequent protest to the PPMC Head, Atty. Felix S. Racadio, were denied. The SBAC proceeded with a re-bidding, awarding the project to respondent Satrap Construction Company, Inc. (SCCI). FUCC initially filed a petition for injunction with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of La Union, which issued but later lifted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) due to the prohibition under Republic Act No. 8975 . FUCC later moved for the dismissal of its RTC petition and instead filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition directly with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the re-bidding, the award to SCCI, and to have the contract awarded to itself.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should grant FUCC’s petition for certiorari and prohibition to annul the procurement proceedings and award the contract to FUCC.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. First, FUCC failed to timely file the petition for certiorari under Rule 65, as it was filed beyond the 60-day period from its receipt of the PPMC decision on March 27, 2007. Second, FUCC violated the doctrine of judicial hierarchy by filing the petition directly with the Supreme Court instead of with the Regional Trial Court as mandated by Section 58 of Republic Act No. 9184 (the Government Procurement Reform Act), which provides that the RTC has jurisdiction over final decisions of the head of the procuring entity. No special and important reasons were adduced to justify direct recourse. Third, the Court noted that while R.A. No. 8975 prohibits lower courts from issuing TROs or preliminary injunctions against government infrastructure projects, it does not proscribe the issuance of a permanent injunction by a court after adjudication on the merits. Therefore, the RTC was the proper venue for FUCC’s action for permanent injunction. The petition was dismissed for being filed out of time and for violating the rule on hierarchy of courts.