100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 95 - 97 out of 101 pages.
2. Petitioners claim that they have been excluded from being selected by respondent even if they have “available, practicable and usable” pipes that could serve the purpose of the project at a much lower cost. 3. Respondent pleaded to the court to reconsider their restraining order on them so that they may provide adequate water supply to those cities that lack potable water, which is a risk to health and life. 4. Respondent claims that it is not an agency of the state. Sc Ruling 1. Respondent is part of the term “Government” in Sec 2 of the RAC, which recognizes that the respondent’s purpose is to achieve a “nationalistic purpose [by giving] preference to locally produced materials, in purchases, works or projects of the GOVERNMENT.” They are thus exercising PROPRIETARY governmental functions. 2. It is found that petitioner creates pipes that are not more than 12 inches in diameter. 3. Petitioner claims that although they may not produce the pipe required by the Respondent, they can import it at any time. This is what they deem as “Available.” 4. SC does not believe that this was meant when the law makers considered the word “Available” in the statute. This definition would be straining the very meaning of the word and thus would be unfair. 5. Preliminary injunctions against respondent are thus set aside. Chapter 11