G.R. No. 212894 , 213820, & 213889, March 04, 2020.
Department of Health (DOH), represented by the Secretary of Health; and the Secretary of Health, as Head of the Procuring Entity, Petitioners, vs. Hon. Bonifacio S. Pascua, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of Branch 56, Regional Trial Court in Makati City; and J.D. Legaspi Construction, Respondents.

FACTS

The controversy arose from the bidding for the Dr. Jose Fabella Memorial Hospital Infrastructure Project. After the initial lowest bidder, Tokwing Construction Corporation, failed post-qualification, respondent J.D. Legaspi Construction (JDLC) was declared the lowest calculated and responsive bidder. However, the DOH cancelled the procurement process. JDLC filed a Petition for Mandamus and Certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 56, presided by Judge Bonifacio S. Pascua, assailing the cancellation and seeking the project’s award. The RTC issued a 20-day Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on June 18, 2014, enjoining the DOH from rebidding or awarding the project. It later issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction on August 18, 2014. On August 29, 2014, the RTC granted JDLC’s petition, annulled the cancellation, and ordered the DOH to award the project to JDLC. The DOH filed three petitions before the Supreme Court: G.R. No. 212894 assailing the TRO, G.R. No. 213820 assailing the preliminary injunction, and G.R. No. 213889 assailing the decision awarding the project. During the pendency of the cases, the DOH complied with the RTC decision and awarded the project to JDLC, which commenced the hospital’s modernization.

ISSUE

Whether the petitions have been rendered moot and academic by the supervening event of the DOH’s compliance with the RTC decision, thereby awarding the project to JDLC and the latter commencing work on it.

RULING

Yes, the petitions are moot and academic. The Supreme Court dismissed G.R. Nos. 212894 and 213820 and denied G.R. No. 213889 for being moot. A case becomes moot when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy because the issues have been resolved or are no longer relevant, or when a supervening event renders a judgment incapable of enforcement or of any practical legal effect. The supervening compliance by the DOH with the RTC’s decision—the award of the project to JDLC and the commencement of construction—rendered the petitions moot. Any decision on the legality of the RTC’s interlocutory orders (TRO and injunction) and its final decision awarding the project would be of no practical use or value. The Court found no compelling reason or exceptional circumstance to justify resolving the moot petitions.