This case has been cited 2 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] | |||||
|
2015-04-07 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| "The equal protection clause, therefore, does not preclude classification of individuals who may be accorded different treatment under the law as long as the classification is reasonable and not arbitrary."[22] "The mere fact that the legislative classification may result in actual inequality is not violative of the right to equal protection, for every classification of persons or things for regulation by law produces inequality in some degree, but the law is not thereby rendered invalid."[23] | |||||