This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2016-01-13 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| It is well-settled in our jurisprudence that the government is granted broad discretion in choosing who among the bidders can offer the most advantageous terms and courts will not interfere therewith or direct the committee on bids to do a particular act or to enjoin such act within its prerogatives, except when in the exercise of its authority, it gravely abuses or exceeds its jurisdiction,[37] or otherwise commits injustice, unfairness, arbitrariness or fraudulent acts.[38] We have recognized that the exercise of that discretion is a policy decision that necessitates prior inquiry, investigation, comparison, evaluation, and deliberation. This task can best be discharged by the concerned government agencies, not by the courts.[39] | |||||
|
2012-06-13 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The three principles of public bidding are: (1) the offer to the public; (2) an opportunity for competition; and (3) a basis for the exact comparison of bids.[41] By its very nature, public bidding aims to protect public interest by giving the public the best possible advantages through open competition.[42] Competition requires not only bidding upon a common standard, a common basis, upon the same thing, the same subject matter, and the same undertaking, but also that it be legitimate, fair and honest and not designed to injure or defraud the government.[43] The essence of competition in public bidding is that the bidders are placed on equal footing which means that all qualified bidders have an equal chance of winning the auction through their bids.[44] Another self-evident purpose of public bidding is to avoid or preclude suspicion of favoritism and anomalies in the execution of public contracts.[45] | |||||
|
2008-03-28 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| It is a well-settled rule that the state cannot be put in estoppel by the mistakes or errors of its officials or agents, especially absent any showing that it had dealt capriciously or dishonorably with its citizens.[7] Thus, the OSG's failure to raise an effective objection to the evidence presented in support of the petition does not bar petitioner from assailing the propriety of the reconstitution ordered by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. | |||||