G.R. No. 231540, June 27, 2022
ANTI-TRAPO MOVEMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY LEON E. PERALTA, PETITIONER, VS. LAND TRANSPORTATION OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD OF AGENCY, EDGAR C. GALVANTE, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

On December 1, 2016, the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the Land Transportation Office (LTO) published an Invitation to Bid for the procurement of driver’s license cards with a five-year validity, with an approved budget of ₱836,000,000.00. Among the bidders were Banner Plasticard, Inc. (Banner), Kolonwel Trading and PT Pura Barutama Joint Venture (Kolonwel), and Dermalog Identification Systems, CFP Strategic Transaction Advisors, and NEXTIX, Inc. Joint Venture (Dermalog). Upon opening of financial bids, Banner submitted the lowest bid of ₱750,000,000.00, followed by Kolonwel (₱814,320,000.00) and Dermalog (₱829,668,053.55). The BAC initially announced Banner as the Lowest Calculated Bid but later post-disqualified it on February 9, 2017, for being non-responsive to specific technical requirements, including failure to verify 99.9% accuracy in records matching and 1-second response time in its submitted documents, and for not including eligibility documents of its subcontractors/manufacturers. Banner’s request for reconsideration was denied. Kolonwel, as the next lowest bidder, was also post-disqualified on February 16, 2017. Dermalog, as the third lowest bidder, underwent a proof-of-concept demonstration on March 29, 2017, which was witnessed by the petitioner, Anti-Trapo Movement of the Philippines. The BAC found Dermalog compliant and, on March 31, 2017, issued a Resolution recommending the award of contract to Dermalog. A Notice of Award was issued on April 3, 2017, and the Contract Agreement and Notice to Proceed were executed on April 7, 2017. On April 10, 2017, Banner filed a motion for reconsideration of the award to Dermalog. On May 26, 2017, Anti-Trapo Movement filed a Petition for Prohibition seeking to enjoin the LTO from proceeding with the contract with Dermalog, alleging grave abuse of discretion in the procurement process, including violation of procurement laws by awarding the contract despite a pending protest from Banner, and claiming the contract was disadvantageous due to a higher bid price compared to Banner’s.

ISSUE

Whether the writ of prohibition is the proper remedy to nullify the awarded contract and enjoin its implementation.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that prohibition, as a preventive remedy, does not lie against an action already accomplished. At the time the petition was filed on May 26, 2017, the contract had already been awarded to Dermalog on April 3, 2017, and the Notice to Proceed had been issued on April 7, 2017. The act sought to be prohibited—the award and execution of the contract—was already a fait accompli. Prohibition is not a remedy for acts already performed. The proper recourse for the petitioner, as a concerned citizen and observer, would have been to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to challenge the award as having been made with grave abuse of discretion. However, the petition filed was one for prohibition, which is unavailing. The Court also noted that the petitioner’s allegations of violations in the procurement process, including the handling of Banner’s protest, pertained to questions of fact best addressed in a proper certiorari proceeding, not in a prohibition case. The petition was dismissed for being an improper remedy.