This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2012-07-30 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The request and the Resolution were unnecessary and superfluous due to the fact that no other proposal had been submitted to outdo the proposal of API. Under the law, awarding the contract to API was a matter of course. As to this, the Court observed in Asia's Emerging Dragon Corporation v. Department of Transportation and Communications,[43] to wit: xxx In the 18 April 2008 Decision, we have already exhaustively scrutinized Section 4-A of the BOT Law, as amended, in relation to its IRR, and in consideration of the intent of the legislators who crafted the BOT Law. We find no reason to disturb our conclusion therein that: | |||||