This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2016-01-13 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The Court thus expounded at length in Bureau Veritas v. Office of the President[40]: x x x It must be stressed, as held in the case of A.C. Esguerra & Sons v. Aytona, et al., (L-18751, 28 April 1962, 4 SCRA 1245), that in an "invitation to bid, there is a condition imposed upon the bidders to the effect that the bidding shall be subject to the right of the government to reject any and all bids subject to its discretion. In the case at bar, the government has made its choice and unless an unfairness or injustice is shown, the losing bidders have no cause to complain nor right to dispute that choice. This is a well-settled doctrine in this jurisdiction and elsewhere." | |||||
|
2014-06-11 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Prefatorily, in accordance with the pertinent customs laws at the time of the arrival of the subject shipment of this case, it must be pointed out that importers, such as respondent herein, are duty-bound to comply with the provisions of the CISS,[22] implemented by Joint Order No. 1-91,[23] particularly as to the requirement of a pre-shipment inspection of the quality, quantity, and price of the imports coming into the Philippines to be conducted at the country of export. Notably, the pre-shipment inspection was intended to prevent the possibility of the undervaluation, misdeclaration, and overvaluation of imports shipped to our country which may defraud the Philippine Government of revenues.[24] | |||||
|
2013-06-13 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| It must be remembered that in the field of competitive public bidding, the owner of the property to be auctioned the government enjoys a wide latitude of discretion and autonomy in choosing the terms of the agreement.[38] This principle is especially true in this case, since the policy decision then[39] was for APT to liquidate nonperforming assets of the government in order to recover losses. Therefore, absent any abuse of discretion, injustice, unfairness or fraudulent acts,[40] this Court refrains[41] from discrediting the judgment call of APT to prefatorily refuse any offer that fell below the indicative price. | |||||
|
2009-01-19 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In any event, the invitation to bid contains a reservation for PPMC to reject any bid. It has been held that where the right to reject is so reserved, the lowest bid, or any bid for that matter, may be rejected on a mere technicality.[19] The discretion to accept or reject bid and award contracts is vested in the government agencies entrusted with that function. This discretion is of such wide latitude that the Courts will not interfere therewith or direct the committee on bids to do a particular act or to enjoin such act within its prerogatives unless it is apparent that it is used as a shield to a fraudulent award;[20] or an unfairness or injustice is shown;[21] or when in the exercise of its authority, it gravely abuses or exceeds its jurisdiction. Thus, where PPMC as advertiser, availing itself of that right, opts to reject any or all bids, the losing bidder has no cause to complain or right to dispute that choice, unless fraudulent acts, injustice, unfairness or grave abuse of discretion is shown. | |||||
|
2005-01-31 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| We reject petitioner's argument that the present case may be considered under the Supreme Court Resolution dated February 23, 1984 which included among en banc cases those involving a novel question of law and those where a doctrine or principle laid down by the court en banc or in division may be modified or reversed. The case was resolved based on basic principles of the right of first refusal in commercial law and estoppel in civil law. Contractual obligations arising from rights of first refusal are not new in this jurisdiction and have been recognized in numerous cases.[18] Estoppel is too known a civil law concept to require an elongated discussion. Fundamental principles on public bidding were likewise used to resolve the issues raised by the petitioner. To be sure, petitioner leans on the right to top in a public bidding in arguing that the case at bar involves a novel issue. We are not swayed. The right to top was merely a condition or a reservation made in the bidding rules which was fully disclosed to all bidding parties. In Bureau Veritas, represented by Theodor H. Hunermann v. Office of the President, et al., [19]we dealt with this conditionality, viz:x x x It must be stressed, as held in the case of A.C. Esguerra & Sons v. Aytona, et al., (L-18751, 28 April 1962, 4 SCRA 1245), that in an "invitation to bid, there is a condition imposed upon the bidders to the effect that the bidding shall be subject to the right of the government to reject any and all bids subject to its discretion. In the case at bar, the government has made its choice and unless an unfairness or injustice is shown, the losing bidders have no cause to complain nor right to dispute that choice. This is a well-settled doctrine in this jurisdiction and elsewhere." | |||||
|
2002-05-28 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| x x x x courts, as a rule, refuse to interfere with proceedings undertaken by administrative bodies or officials in the exercise of administrative functions. This is so because such bodies are generally better equipped technically to decide administrative questions and that non-legal factors, such as government policy on the matter, are usually involved in the decisions.[26] Nor would the allegations, even if admitted to be true, compel a permanent restraint on the execution of the respective concession contracts of respondents 2000 TRANSPORT and NISSAN with MIAA. In Bureau Veritas v. Office of the President[27] we ruled that "the discretion to accept or reject a bid and award contracts is vested in the Government agencies entrusted with that function." Furthermore, Sec. 1 of PD 1818 (the governing statute in all the relevant dates alleged in the complaint) distinctly provides that "[n]o court in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order, preliminary injunction x x x in any case, dispute, or controversy involving x x x any public utility operated by the government, including among others public utilities for the transport of the goods or commodities x x x to prohibit any person or persons x x x from proceeding with, or continuing the execution or implementation of any such project, or the operation of such public utility, or pursuing any lawful activity necessary for such execution, implementation or operation." We stress that the provision expressly deprives courts of jurisdiction to issue injunctive writs against the implementation or execution of contracts for the operation of a public utility.[28] Undeniably, both respondent MIAA and the concession contracts it wanted to bid out involve a public utility which would therefore enjoy the protective mantle of the decree. | |||||
|
2000-11-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| It is well settled that the role of courts is to ascertain whether a branch or instrumentality of Government has transgressed its constitutional or statutory boundaries. The courts, must examine those boundaries in the light of provisions of the law. Otherwise, it would stray into the realm of policy decision-making.[33] | |||||