G.R. No. 211122 , December 6, 2021
HARBOUR CENTRE PORT TERMINAL, INC., PETITIONER, VS. HON. ARMAND C. ARREZA, ADMINISTRATOR OF SBMA AND/OR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY, AND SUBIC SEAPORT TERMINAL INC., RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Harbour Centre Port Terminal Inc. submitted an unsolicited proposal to respondent Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) for a joint venture to develop and operate certain port areas within the Subic Bay Freeport Zone. The SBMA Board accepted the proposal in principle and constituted a Joint Venture Selection Panel (SBMA-JVSP), which included a NEDA representative. After negotiations, the SBMA Board approved the terms. Pending the competitive challenge process (Swiss Challenge) required by the 2008 JV Guidelines, SBMA and petitioner executed a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) on February 24, 2010. On the same day, respondent Subic Seaport Terminal Inc. (SSTI) filed a case against SBMA challenging the JVA. SBMA published an invitation for comparative proposals, but no challengers emerged. The SBMA Board then issued a resolution on May 7, 2010, adopting the recommendation to award the project to petitioner, subject only to a COMELEC exemption and a favorable opinion from the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC). The COMELEC exemption issue became moot after the election period lapsed. Petitioner corrected its bid security as advised. On June 22, 2011, SBMA received a favorable legal opinion from the OGCC, subject to proposed amendments. Despite this, SBMA failed to issue the Notice of Award and Notice to Proceed to petitioner. Petitioner filed a petition for mandamus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which was granted. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC decision. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the SBMA, through its Administrator, has a clear legal duty to issue the Notice of Award and Notice to Proceed to petitioner after the fulfillment of the conditions set forth in the SBMA Board Resolution, such that a writ of mandamus is proper.

RULING

The dissenting opinion argues that the SBMA has a ministerial duty to issue the Notice of Award and Notice to Proceed. All conditions precedent in the SBMA Board Resolution No. 10-05-3646 were satisfied: (1) the COMELEC exemption requirement was rendered functus officio as the election period had lapsed without an award being made; and (2) the OGCC issued a favorable legal opinion (Opinion No. 131, Series of 2011) stating the JVA was executed in compliance with the JV Guidelines, subject to certain proposed amendments. The SBMA’s subsequent inaction, after petitioner had complied with all requirements and no challenger emerged from the Swiss Challenge, constituted an unjustified refusal to perform a purely ministerial duty. The dissent emphasizes that mandamus lies to compel the performance of a duty which is clear, specific, and enjoined by law, and that the SBMA Administrator had no discretion to withhold the award once the conditions were met. The dissent further notes that the JV Guidelines allow for the execution of a JVA prior to the competitive challenge, provided it is made subject to the outcome of that process, which was done in this case. Therefore, the dissent would grant the petition and reverse the CA decision, thereby reinstating the RTC’s grant of the writ of mandamus.