PHIL
PHARMAWEALTH, INC., G.R. No. 167806
Petitioner,
Present:
Panganiban, C.J.
(Chairperson),
- versus - Ynares-Santiago,
Austria-Martinez,
Callejo, Sr., and
Chico-Nazario, JJ.
PHILIPPINE CHILDREN’S MEDICAL
CENTER BIDS AND AWARDS
COMMITTEE, BENJAMIN T. LIM, Promulgated:
EMMA A.
MARIANO, NENA U.
CALDEO AND DAHLIA CARRIOS,
Respondents. June 26, 2006
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
This petition for review under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court assails the December 20, 2004 Order[1] of
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 217 in Civil Case No.
Q-04-54416 which dismissed petitioner’s Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition
and Mandamus with Complaint for Damages, and the
Petitioner Phil Pharmawealth, Inc.,
(PPI for brevity), is a duly organized corporation licensed to import and
distribute medical devices and finished pharmaceutical products. Respondent Philippine Children’s Medical
Center Bids and Awards Committee (PCMC-BAC) was organized pursuant to Republic
Act No. 9184,[3] also
known as the Government Procurement Reform Act (GPRA), to manage the
procurement of goods and services by the Philippine Children’s
The facts as culled from the records are
as follows:
Respondent PCMC-BAC undertook a
public bidding for the procurement of its supplies for the first semester of
calendar year 2005. Petitioner prepared to participate in the bidding by obtaining
a list of eligibility requirements. When
it submitted on
On
Petitioner requested for a copy of
the order banning it from joining the bidding but despite repeated reminders, PCMC-BAC
failed to issue the requested document.
The bidding proceeded as scheduled
without its participation, thus petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari,
Prohibition and Mandamus with Complaint for Damages and Application for a
Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction before the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 04-54416 and
raffled to Branch 217.
As already stated, the trial court dismissed
the petition on
Petitioner maintains that the rule
requiring that the assailed decision must be attached to the petition for
certiorari must be dispensed with where, as in this case, the tribunal, board
or officer refuses to reduce its decision in writing and furnish the affected
party with it. Otherwise, the rule will
result in absurdity and manifest injustice because it would require the petitioner
to do something which the tribunal, board or officer has rendered impossible.
Petitioner likewise argues that the
trial court erred in denying its motion for reconsideration and holding that
there exists other remedies that it could avail of. It claims that in the absence of a written
decision, the aggrieved party cannot appeal the decision of the PCMC-BAC to the
head of the procuring entity pursuant to Sections 55 and 58 of GPRA.
Respondents on the other hand insist
that the absence of a written notice barring petitioner from participating in
the bidding will not render the verbal notifications made by PCMC-BAC inoperative
or defective. They maintain that
petitioner had administrative remedies under the law which it unfortunately
failed to avail of.
The petition
lacks merit.
It is settled
that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is availed
of when there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law.[4] In the instant case, petitioner failed to
avail of the administrative remedies before resorting to certiorari.
Section 23.3
of Rule VIII of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9184 explicitly
provides:
23.3. The BAC shall
inform an eligible prospective bidder that it has been found eligible to
participate in the bidding. On the other
hand, the BAC shall inform an ineligible prospective bidder that it has been
found ineligible to participate in the bidding, and the grounds for its
ineligibility. Those found ineligible
have seven (7) calendar days upon written notice or, if present at the time of
opening of eligibility requirements, upon verbal notification, within which to
file a request for a reconsideration with the BAC: Provided, however, That the BAC shall decide on the request for
reconsideration within seven (7) calendar days from receipt thereof. The BAC may request a prospective bidder to
clarify its eligibility documents, if it is deemed necessary. The BAC shall not be allowed to receive, hold
and/or open the bids of ineligible prospective bidders: Provided, however, That if an ineligible prospective bidder
signifies his intent to file a motion for reconsideration, the BAC shall hold
the eligibility documents of the said ineligible prospective bidder until such
time that the motion for reconsideration has been resolved. Furthermore, for procurement of goods, the
BAC shall hold the bid of the said ineligible prospective bidder unopened and
duly sealed until such time that the motion for reconsideration has been
resolved.
Following the
above procedure, petitioner has until
Section
55. Protests on Decisions of the BAC.
55.1. Decisions of
the BAC with respect to the conduct of bidding may be protested in writing to
the head of the procuring entity: Provided,
however, That a prior motion for reconsideration should have been filed by
the party concerned within the reglementary periods specified in this IRR-A,
and the same has been resolved. The
protest must be filed within seven (7) calendar days from receipt by the party
concerned of the resolution of the BAC denying its motion for
reconsideration. A protest may be made
by filing a verified position paper with the head of the procuring entity
concerned, accompanied by the payment of a non-refundable protest fee. The non-refundable protest fee shall be in an
amount equivalent to no less than one percent (1%) of the ABC.
In view
thereof, the petition for certiorari filed with the Regional Trial Court by the
petitioner is premature. Section 58.1,
Rule XVII of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9184 is explicit:
Section
58. Resort to Regular Courts;
Certiorari.
58.1. Court action
may be resorted to only after the protests contemplated in this Rule shall have
been completed, i.e. resolved by the
head of the procuring entity with finality.
The regional trial court shall have jurisdiction over final decisions of
the head of the procuring entity. Court
actions shall be governed by Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
In Batelec II Electric Cooperative, Inc. v.
Energy Industry Administration Bureau (EIAB),[5] this
Court held –
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies calls
for resort first to the appropriate administrative authorities to accord them
the prior opportunity to decide controversies within their competence before
the same may be elevated to the courts of justice for review. It is presumed
that an administrative agency, if afforded an opportunity to pass upon a
matter, will decide the same correctly, or correct any previous error committed
in its forum. Furthermore, reasons of law, comity and convenience prevent the
courts from entertaining cases proper for determination by administrative
agencies. Hence, premature resort to the courts necessarily becomes fatal to
the cause of action of the petitioner.
We are aware of
instances when resort to administrative remedies may be dispensed with and
judicial action may be validly resorted to immediately, among which are: 1)
when the question raised is purely legal; 2) when the administrative body is in
estoppel; 3) when the act complained of is patently illegal; 4) when there is
urgent need for judicial intervention; 5) when the claim involved is small; 6) when
irreparable damage will be suffered; 7) when there is no other plain, speedy
and adequate remedy; 8) when strong public interest is involved; and 9) in quo warranto proceedings.[6] However, petitioner failed to satisfactorily
show that the instant case falls among the recognized exceptions to the rule on
exhaustion of administrative remedies.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
Chairperson
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO
V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, p. 23. Penned by Judge
[2]
[3] AN
ACT PROVIDING FOR THE MODERNIZATION, STANDARDIZATION AND REGULATION OF THE
PROCUREMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
[4]
See RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, Sec. 1.
[5]
G.R. No. 135925, December 22, 2004, 447 SCRA 482, 496.
[6]