Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 533 views

    CivPro Dynamic Builders Vs Prebitero

    Uploaded by

    Sheena Palmares
    This case involves a dispute over a contract awarded by the Municipality of Valladolid to construct a seawall. Dynamic Builders, the lowest bidder, filed a protest after it was declared not substantially responsive. When the protest was denied, Dynamic Builders simultaneously filed a petition for certiorari with the regional trial court and a petition for prohibition with the Supreme Court. The public respondents argued this violated rules against splitting causes of action and forum shopping. The Supreme Court held that Dynamic Builders did violate these rules by simultaneously filing petitions in two different courts. It also held the regional trial court has jurisdiction over challenges to local government infrastructure project awards, not the Supreme Court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    CivPro Dynamic Builders Vs Prebitero

    Uploaded by

    Sheena Palmares
    533 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute over a contract awarded by the Municipality of Valladolid to construct a seawall. Dynamic Builders, the lowest bidder, filed a protest after it was declared not substantially responsive. When the protest was denied, Dynamic Builders simultaneously filed a petition for certiorari with the regional trial court and a petition for prohibition with the Supreme Court. The public respondents argued this violated rules against splitting causes of action and forum shopping. The Supreme Court held that Dynamic Builders did violate these rules by simultaneously filing petitions in two different courts. It also held the regional trial court has jurisdiction over challenges to local government infrastructure project awards, not the Supreme Court.

    Original Title

    8.-CivPro-Dynamic-Builders-vs-Prebitero

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over a contract awarded by the Municipality of Valladolid to construct a seawall. Dynamic Builders, the lowest bidder, filed a protest after it was declared not substantially responsive. When the protest was denied, Dynamic Builders simultaneously filed a petition for certiorari with the regional trial court and a petition for prohibition with the Supreme Court. The public respondents argued this violated rules against splitting causes of action and forum shopping. The Supreme Court held that Dynamic Builders did violate these rules by simultaneously filing petitions in two different courts. It also held the regional trial court has jurisdiction over challenges to local government infrastructure project awards, not the Supreme Court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    533 views2 pages

    CivPro Dynamic Builders Vs Prebitero

    Uploaded by

    Sheena Palmares
    This case involves a dispute over a contract awarded by the Municipality of Valladolid to construct a seawall. Dynamic Builders, the lowest bidder, filed a protest after it was declared not substantially responsive. When the protest was denied, Dynamic Builders simultaneously filed a petition for certiorari with the regional trial court and a petition for prohibition with the Supreme Court. The public respondents argued this violated rules against splitting causes of action and forum shopping. The Supreme Court held that Dynamic Builders did violate these rules by simultaneously filing petitions in two different courts. It also held the regional trial court has jurisdiction over challenges to local government infrastructure project awards, not the Supreme Court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    G.R. No.

    174202, April 07, 2015

    DYNAMIC BUILDERS & CONSTRUCTION CO. (PHIL.), INC., Petitioner, v. HON.


    RICARDO P. PRESBITERO, JR., MAYOR AND HEAD OF PROCURING UNIT OF THE
    MUNICIPALITY OF VALLADOLID, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL; BIDS AND AWARDS
    COMMITTEE, MUNICIPALITY OF VALLADOLID, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL; AND
    HENRY L. JORDAN AND/OR HLJ CONSTRUCTION AND ENTERPRISE,
    Respondents.

    Facts:

    The Municipality of Valladolid, Negros Occidental, through its Bids and Awards
    Committee (BAC), published an invitation to bid for the construction of a 1,050-
    lineal-meter rubble concrete seawall along the municipality's shoreline. The BAC
    issued a resolution affirming the award of contract to HLJ Construction and
    Enterprise for the construction.

    Dynamic Builders, the lowest bidders, was declared as not substantially


    responsive. Dynamic Builders lodged a formal protest with the head of the
    procuring entity, Mayor Presbitero, to set aside decision declaring Dynamic
    Builders' bid as not substantially responsive, but the same was denied.

    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.

    Also, Dynamic Builders filed a Petition for prohibition with application


    for temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction
    before the Supreme 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.

    Issue:

    Whether Article XVII, Section 58 of Republic Act No. 9184 contemplates


    simultaneous filing of a petition for prohibition seeking injunctive reliefs from this
    court and a petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court;
    consequently: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    a) Whether petitioner violated the rules against the splitting of a cause of action,
    multiplicity of suits, and forum shopping;

    b) Whether petitioner violated the doctrine on hierarchy of courts.


    Held:

    a. Yes. Section 58 could not have envisioned a simultaneous resort to the SC by


    one that had already filed an action before the Regional Trial Court without
    violating the basic rules on proscription against the splitting of a cause of action,
    multiplicity of suits, and 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."

    Republic Act No. 8975 does not sanction splitting a cause of action in order for a
    party to avail itself of the ancillary remedy of a temporary restraining order from
    the SC. Also, this law covers only national government infrastructure projects.
    This case involves a local government infrastructure project.

    For local government infrastructure projects, Regional Trial Courts may issue
    provisional injunctive reliefs against government infrastructure projects under
    certain circumstances. 

    b. Yes. Clearly, the proper recourse to a court action from decisions of the BAC is
    to file a certiorari not before the Supreme Court but before the regional trial
    court which is vested by R.A. No. 9184 with jurisdiction to entertain the same.

    You might also like