G.R. No. 220832 . February 28, 2018.
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS (BOC), represented by COMMISSIONER ALBERTO D. LINA, AND DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT PROCUREMENT SERVICE (DBM-PS), represented by EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR JOSE TOMAS C. SYQUIA, Petitioners, vs. HON. PAULINO Q. GALLEGOS, in his capacity as PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANILA, BRANCH 47, and the purported JOINT VENTURE OF OMNIPRIME MARKETING, INC. AND INTRASOFT INTERNATIONAL, INC., represented by ANNABELLE A. MARGAROLI, Respondents.

FACTS

The Bureau of Customs (BOC), through the Department of Budget and Management-Procurement Service (DBM-PS), initiated a competitive public bidding for Phase Two of the Philippines’ National Single Window (PNSW 2) project, an information technology initiative aimed at modernizing and integrating customs processing systems. Among the bidders were the private respondent, a joint venture, and another entity whose biggest shareholder was BOC Commissioner Alberto D. Lina. After evaluation, the DBM-PS Bids and Awards Committee issued a Notice of Highest Rated Bid and an Invitation to Negotiate to the private respondent on April 13, 2015. Contract negotiations commenced thereafter.
Subsequently, Commissioner Lina was appointed on April 23, 2015. On May 6, 2015, he wrote to DBM-PS Executive Director Jose Tomas C. Syquia requesting the discontinuance of the procurement process, invoking Section 41(c) of Republic Act No. 9184 (the Government Procurement Reform Act), which allows the head of the procuring agency to reject all bids for justifiable grounds where the award will not benefit the government. Acting on this, Director Syquia issued a Notice of Cancellation on May 7, 2015. The private respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting it to file a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC issued a Temporary Restraining Order and later an Omnibus Order granting a writ of preliminary injunction, enjoining the implementation of the cancellation.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court gravely abused its discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction against the cancellation of the PNSW 2 project’s bidding process.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of a preliminary injunction and the specific statutory restrictions on judicial interference in government infrastructure projects. A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy requiring a clear and unmistakable right to be protected. The private respondent, as a mere bidder, had no vested right to the award of the government contract. The bidding process was still ongoing at the negotiation stage, and no contract had been perfected. The right of a bidder is merely a privilege or an expectancy, not a property right warranting injunctive relief.
Crucially, the Court emphasized that the PNSW 2 project is a government infrastructure project. Under Republic Act No. 8975 , courts are prohibited from issuing temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions against the implementation or execution of such projects, except in limited cases from the Supreme Court. The RTC’s injunction directly contravened this explicit statutory prohibition, which is designed to prevent costly delays in vital public infrastructure. The petitioners’ act of cancelling the bidding, based on the procuring agency head’s discretionary power under Section 41(c) of R.A. No. 9184 , is an integral part of the project’s implementation process. Therefore, the RTC’s order