This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2013-10-02 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In the field of public contracts, these stipulations are weighed with the taint of invalidity for contravening the policy requiring government contracts to be awarded through public bidding.[20] Unless clearly falling under statutory exceptions, government contracts for the procurement of goods or services are required to undergo public bidding[21] "to protect the public interest by giving the public the best possible advantages thru open competition."[22] The inclusion of a right of first refusal in a government contract executed post-bidding, as here, negates the essence of public bidding because the stipulation "gives the winning bidder an x x x advantage over the other bidders who participated in the bidding x x x."[23] Moreover, a "right of first refusal," or "right to top," whether granted to a bidder or non-bidder, discourages other parties from submitting bids, narrowing the number of possible bidders and thus preventing the government from securing the best bid. | |||||
|
2012-10-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It must be pointed out that public biddings are held for the best protection of the public and to give the public the best possible advantages by means of open competition between the bidders, and to change them without complying with the bidding requirement would be against public policy.[60] What are prohibited are modifications or amendments which give the winning bidder an edge or advantage over the other bidders who took part in the bidding, or which make the signed contract unfavorable to the government.[61] In this case, as thoroughly discussed in our June 13, 2012 Decision, the extension of the option period and the eventual purchase of the subject goods resulted in more benefits and advantages to the government and to the public in general. | |||||
|
2012-07-30 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Section 9.1, supra, actually envisages an ordinary public bidding in which only a lone bidder ends up to be compliant. The offer to the public and the opportunity for competition, two of the three principles in public bidding,[27] precede the negotiation. Under the BOT Law, therefore, the private sector may become a partner of the Government in its infrastructure projects only either by participating in a regular bidding or by presenting an unsolicited proposal, where there is likewise a subsequent bidding. | |||||
|
2012-07-04 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| As pointed out in the case of Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation v. Pozzolanic Philippines Incorporated,[26] an essential element of a publicly bidded contract is that all bidders must be on equal footing, not simply in terms of application of the procedural rules and regulations imposed by the relevant government agency, but more importantly, on the contract bidded upon. | |||||
|
2012-06-13 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Considering, however, that the AES contract is not an ordinary contract as it involves procurement by a government agency, the rights and obligations of the parties are governed not only by the Civil Code but also by RA 9184. In this jurisdiction, public bidding is the established procedure in the grant of government contracts. The award of public contracts, through public bidding, is a matter of public policy.[40] The parties are, therefore, not at full liberty to amend or modify the provisions of the contract bidded upon. | |||||
|
2012-06-13 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Smartmatic-TIM categorically stated in its Consolidated Comment to the petitions that the Comelec still retains P50M of the amount due Smartmatic-TIM as performance security.[38] In short, the performance security had not yet been released to Smartmatic-TIM which indicates that the AES contract is still effective and not yet terminated. Consequently, pursuant to Article 19[39] of the contract, the provisions thereof may still be amended by mutual agreement of the parties provided said amendment is in writing and signed by the parties. In light of the provisions of the AES contract, there is, therefore, nothing wrong with the execution of the Extension Agreement. | |||||
|
2012-06-13 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| x x x[64] | |||||