This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-12-03 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| A competitive public bidding aims to protect public interest by giving it the best possible advantages thru open competition. It is precisely the mechanism that enables the government agency to avoid or preclude anomalies in the execution of public contracts.[43]The manifest reluctance of the petitioner to hold a public bidding and award the contract to the winning bidder smacks of favoritism and partiality toward PAL Boat. | |||||
|
2011-06-29 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| In this case, the only attempt made to comply with the bidding requirements is the publication of the invitation which, as already mentioned, was even defective. As noted by the Sandiganbayan, there was no in-depth negotiation as to the project scope, implementation and arrangements and concession agreement, which are supposed to be used in the Terms of Reference (TOR). Such TOR would have provided the interested competitors the basis for their proposed cost, and its absence in this case is an indication that any possible competing proposal was intentionally avoided or altogether eliminated. The essence of competition in public bidding is that the bidders are placed on equal footing.[32] In the award of government contracts, the law requires a competitive public bidding. This is reasonable because "[a] competitive public bidding aims to protect the public interest by giving the public the best possible advantages thru open competition. It is a mechanism that enables the government agency to avoid or preclude anomalies in the execution of public contracts."[33] | |||||
|
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. | |||||