13 Dynamic Builders Vs Presbitero

Dynamic Builders and Construction Co. vs. Hon. Ricardo Presbitero, Jr.
G.R. No. 174202, April 7, 2015
Facts: The Bids and Awards Committee issued a Resolution affirming the award of
contract to HLJ Construction and Enterprise for the construction of the 1,050-lineal-
meter Construction Shoreline Protection Project amounting to P31,922,420.37. Bids
and Awards Committee Chairperson Celina C. Segunla wrote Engr. Raul F. Balandra of
Dynamic Builders to inform them of the Bids and Awards Committee’s findings and
decision. Dynamic Builders alleged that it submitted the letter containing a request
for the Bids and Awards Committee to furnish it with all submitted bid documents and
relevant Bids and Awards Committee resolutions, but this was denied. A subsequent
motion for reconsideration was also denied.
Dynamic Builders lodged a formal protest with the head of the procuring entity, Mayor
Ricardo P. Presbitero, Jr. (Mayor Presbitero), to set aside the Bids and Awards
Committee decision declaring Dynamic Builders’ bid as not substantially responsive. It
was dismissed. Pursuant to Article XVII, Section 58 of Republic Act No. 9184,
otherwise known as the Government Procurement Reform Act, Dynamic Builders filed
the Petition for Certiorari before the Regional Trial Court of Bago City, Negros
Occidental, assailing Mayor Presbitero’s Decision and Resolution.
Simultaneously, Dynamic Builders filed this Petition 29 dated September 4, 2006 for
prohibition with application for temporary restraining order and/or writ of
preliminary injunction before this court.
Public respondents counter that petitioner "grossly violated the rules against splitting
a single cause of action, multiplicity of suits, and forum shopping . . . [and] availed of
an improper remedy and disregarded the rule on ‘hierarchy of courts[.]’"
Issues:
1. Whether petitioner violated the rules against the splitting of a cause of action,
multiplicity of suits, and forum shopping.
Yes, the petitioner violated the rules against the splitting of a cause of action,
multiplicity of suits, and forum shopping. The Petition filed before the Supreme
Court seeks to enjoin the execution of public respondent’s Decision and Resolution
on the protest — the same Decision and Resolution sought to be set aside in the
Petition before the Regional Trial Court. In essence, petitioner seeks the same
relief through two separate Petitions filed before separate courts. This violates
the rule against forum shopping. Rule 2, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides
that "[a] party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action."
Moreover, Section 4 discusses the splitting of a single cause of action in that "if
two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing
of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the
dismissal of the others." The splitting of a cause of action "violate[s] the policy
against multiplicity of suits, whose primary objective [is] to avoid unduly
burdening the dockets of the courts."
2. Whether Article XVII, Section 58 of Republic Act No. 9184, in relation to
Republic Act No. 8975 and Presidential Decree No. 1818, allows Regional Trial
Courts to issue injunctive relief subject to the presence of certain conditions.
There is nothing in Republic Act No. 8975 or in Presidential Decree No. 1818
that allows the simultaneous availment of legal remedies before the Regional
Trial Court and the Supreme Court. Republic Act No. 8975, even when read
with Presidential Decree No. 1818, does not sanction the splitting of a cause of
action in order for a party to avail itself of the ancilliary remedy of a
temporary restraining order from the Supreme Court.
Petitioner’s reading of Republic Act No. 8975’s repealing clause, such that only
the Supreme Court can issue injunctive relief, fails to persuade. The Court has
set the limit on the prohibition found in Presidential Decree No. 1818 by
explaining that lower courts are not prohibited from enjoining administrative
acts when questions of law exist and the acts do not involve administrative
discretion in technical cases: Although Presidential Decree No. 1818 prohibits
any court from issuing injunctions in cases involving infrastructure projects, the
prohibition extends only to the issuance of injunctions or restraining orders
against administrative acts in controversies involving facts or the exercise of
discretion in technical cases. On issues clearly outside this dimension and
involving questions of law, the Court declared that courts could not be
prevented from exercising their power to restrain or prohibit administrative
acts.
3. Whether respondents violated this court’s September 18, 2006 status quo Order
in relation to the ongoing Construction Shoreline Protection Project.
No. This court has explained that status quo should be the one existing at the
time of the filing of the case: The status quo should be that existing at the
time of the filing of the case. The status quo usually preserved by a preliminary
injunction is the last actual, peaceable and uncontested status which preceded
the actual controversy. The status quo ante litem is, ineluctably, the state of
affairs which is existing at the time of the filing of the case. Indubitably, the
trial court must not make use of its injunctive power to alter such status.
In this case, the present existing condition on September 18, 2006, was the
ongoing construction." Relying in good faith on the ordinary meaning of status
quo as differentiated from status quo ante, respondents pushed through with
the construction, which had been the existing state of affairs at the time the
September 18, 2006 Resolution was issued.

13 Dynamic Builders Vs Presbitero

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

13 Dynamic Builders Vs Presbitero

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

13 Dynamic Builders Vs Presbitero

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dynamic Builders and Construction Co. vs. Hon. Ricardo Presbitero, Jr.

G.R. No. 174202, April 7, 2015

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.