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 facilities, pursuant to the 2008 NEDA JV Guidelines. The SBMA Board accepted the proposal in principle, constituted a Selection Panel (SBMA-JVSP), and conducted negotiations with petitioner. The negotiated terms were embodied in a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA), which was expressly made subject to the competitive challenge process. After publication, no comparative proposals were submitted. The SBMA-JVSP recommended awarding the project to petitioner. The SBMA Board issued a resolution adopting this recommendation, subject to conditions including a favorable opinion from the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC). The OGCC eventually issued a favorable opinion, recommending minor clarifications, which were accepted by both parties. However, NEDA withdrew its endorsement of the project, citing alleged violations of the 2008 JV Guidelines, specifically the execution of the JVA at Stage Two and a perceived material change in project cost. SBMA deferred action on the award. Petitioner filed a petition for mandamus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to compel SBMA to issue the Notice of Award and Notice to Proceed. The RTC granted the writ. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the SBMA has a clear legal duty to issue the Notice of Award and Notice to Proceed to petitioner, such that a writ of mandamus is proper.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the RTC decision granting the writ of mandamus. The Court held that SBMA had a ministerial duty to issue the Notice of Award and Notice to Proceed after petitioner had successfully undergone the prescribed process under the 2008 JV Guidelines and no comparative proposal was received. The execution of the JVA prior to the competitive challenge did not violate the guidelines, as the JVA itself was conditional and subject to the outcome of that challenge. The perceived change in project cost was not a material amendment that required a new public bidding but was a result of the detailed project design developed during negotiations, which was contemplated by the guidelines. NEDA’s withdrawal of endorsement, based on an erroneous interpretation of its own guidelines, did not negate SBMA’s legal obligation arising from its own board resolutions and the completed process. Mandamus lies to compel SBMA to perform its ministerial duty to formalize the award to the winning proponent, petitioner Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc.