Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. PHILIPP BROTHERS OCEANIC

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 211737 2016-01-13	SERGIO R. OSMEÑA III v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Under the ITPB, the PBAC reserves the right to waive any minor defects in the Qualification Documents, and accept the offer it deems most advantageous to the government.[42] Verily, a reservation of the government of its right to reject any bid, generally vests in the authorities a wide discretion as to who is the best and most advantageous bidder. The exercise of such discretion involves inquiry, investigation, comparison, deliberation and decision, which are quasi-judicial functions, and when honestly exercised, may not be reviewed by the court.[43]
	GR No. 196723 2013-08-28	ASIAN CONSTRUCTION v. SUMITOMO CORPORATION PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
To elucidate, jurisprudence dictates that in the absence of a governing stipulation, attorney's fees may be awarded only in case the plaintiff's action or defendant's stand is so untenable as to amount to gross and evident bad faith.[63] This is embodied in Article 2208 of the Civil Code which states:Article 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:
	GR No. 149241 2009-08-24	DART PHILIPPINES v. SPS. FRANCISCO AND ERLINDA CALOGCOG NACHURA, J.
Under Article 19 of the Civil Code, every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. To find the existence of abuse of right under the said article, the following elements must be present: (1) there is a legal right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.[31] Accordingly, the exercise of a right shall always be in accordance with the purpose for which it has been established, and must not be excessive or unduly harsh--there must be no intention to injure another.[32] A person will be protected only when he acts in the legitimate exercise of his right, that is, when he acts with prudence and in good faith, not when he acts with negligence or abuse.[33]
	GR No. 178799 2009-01-19	FIRST UNITED CONSTRUCTORS CORPORATION v. PORO POINT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION OF PPMC 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.
	GR NO. 115880 2007-01-23	PEDRO GONZALES v. MADAME PILAR FARM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION GARCIA, J.
In any event, the MNR, following its rules and exercising its administrative discretion, did not find the situation thus depicted sufficient ground to reject the application altogether. To borrow from National Power Corporation v. Philipp Brothers Oceanic, Inc.,[14] the exercise of discretion is usually a policy decision that necessitates inquiry and deliberation on the wisdom and practicalities of a given course of action, in this case approving or denying the lease application. The role of courts is to ascertain whether a branch or instrumentality of government has transgressed its constitutional boundaries. Courts will not interfere with executive or legislative discretion exercised within those boundaries. Otherwise, they stray into the forbidden realm of policy decision-making.[15]
	GR No. 138123 2002-03-12	MINDEX RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT v. EPHRAIM MORILLO PANGANIBAN, J.
"It is settled that the award of attorney's fees is the exception rather than the rule and counsel's fees are not to be awarded every time a party wins suit. The power of the court to award attorney's fees under Article 2208 of the Civil Code demands factual, legal, and equitable justification; its basis cannot be left to speculation or conjecture. Where granted, the court must explicitly state in the body of the decision, and not only in the dispositive portion thereof, the legal reason for the award of attorney's fees." Moreover, a recent case[20] ruled that "in the absence of stipulation, a winning party may be awarded attorney's fees only in case plaintiff's action or defendant's stand is so untenable as to amount to gross and evident bad faith."