GR 206042; (July, 2022) (Digest)
G.R. No. 206042 . July 04, 2022
AMALGAMATED MOTORS PHILIPPINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS [HON. MANUEL A. ROXAS, II AND HON. JOSEPH EMILIO AGUINALDO ABAYA], VIRGINIA P. TORRES, AND ILDEFONSO T. PATDU, JR., RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
The Land Transportation Office (LTO) published an Invitation to Bid for the Supply and Delivery of Philippine Driver’s License Cards. Petitioner Amalgamated Motors Philippines, Inc. (AMPI) purchased the bidding documents. Due to issues, the bidding was deferred, and the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) subsequently issued Department Order No. 2010-36, creating a Special Bids and Awards Committee (SBAC) and posting a new Invitation to Bid. Realtime Data Management Services, Inc. (RDMSI), another entity that purchased documents, filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief with a prayer for injunction, which the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted. AMPI later intervened, and the RTC also granted its application for a writ of preliminary injunction against the new bidding processes initiated under the subsequent Department and Special Orders.
Aggrieved, the DOTC officials filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the RTC’s issuance of the writs. The CA reversed the RTC, dissolving the writs of preliminary injunction. It ruled that AMPI and RDMSI, as mere prospective bidders who had only purchased documents but had not yet submitted formal bids, did not possess a clear and unmistakable right warranting injunctive relief. AMPI’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dissolving the writs of preliminary injunction issued by the Regional Trial Court.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA. The core legal principle is that a writ of preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy issued to preserve the status quo and protect a party’s rights during litigation. For its issuance, the applicant must prove a clear and unmistakable right, or a right in esse. The Court held that AMPI failed to establish such a right. As a prospective bidder who had merely purchased bidding documents, AMPI’s participation and any concomitant rights were merely inchoate and speculative. Its status did not mature into that of a bidder with vested rights because it had not yet submitted a formal bid proposal in response to the invitation.
The Court emphasized that the right to participate in a public bidding is not a proprietary right but a mere privilege. Until a bid is actually submitted, a prospective bidder’s interest is merely contingent and future. Therefore, there was no clear legal right to be protected by injunction. The RTC’s grant of the writ was thus a grave abuse of discretion, as it was not based on a legal right but on a mere expectancy. The CA correctly dissolved the injunction, as the fundamental requirement of a clear and unmistakable right was absent. The procedural issue regarding the timeliness of the certiorari petition was also resolved in favor of the respondents, finding no undue delay.