Petitioners now assail that part of the decision of the Court of Appeals nullifying and enjoining the implementation of the contracts with the new security agencies. They plead that we restrain the lower courts from enforcing the injunction as against the new security agencies. They argue that the new security agencies were hired as an "emergency measure" after the contracts with the incumbent security agencies expired. They claim that without the new security agencies, the properties of the NFA worth billions of pesos would be exposed to danger of loss and dissipation. 3 On May 18, 1994, we issued a temporary restraining order enjoining respondents from enforcing the decision of the Court of Appeals and the writs of preliminary injunction issued by the trial courts "insofar as the same nullify or otherwise stop the implementation of the subject interim negotiated NFA security contracts." We however ordered petitioners to "proceed with the public bidding of the security contracts without delay and submit to us a report on the result of such bidding within 30 days from the holding thereof." 4 On July 21, 1994, petitioners submitted a report dated July 19, 1994 informing the Court that a public bidding was held on June 21, 1994 but no contract had been awarded because the PBAC had to study and evaluate each and every bid proposal. 5 A second report dated March 3, 1995 was Cled by petitioners informing us that deliberation on the bids was prolonged by the necessity of passing upon the technical merits of each bid and by the discovery of collusion between two bidders "which spawned threats against the life of the members of the PBAC." The PBAC decided to conduct a rebidding in Areas 1, 2, and 3 and apprise the court of the results thereof. 6 A third report dated July 13, 1995 was submitted where petitioners manifested that still no contract had been awarded because the minimum number of bidders per area was not met. Two bidders 7 for Areas 3, 4 and 5 submitted identical bids which were held collusive by the PBAC per advice of the OMce of the Government Corporate Counsel. The rejection of the two agencies reduced the number of bidders in each area below the required minimum compelling the PBAC to recommend a failure of bidding in all Cve NFA areas. Petitioners, however, could not act on the PBAC's recommendation because a temporary restraining order was issued on April 10, 1995 by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Davao. One of the bidders found in collusion 8 Cled a complaint with the said Regional Trial Court questioning the legality of the PBAC's rejection of its bids and enjoining NFA and the PBAC from awarding security contracts to any lowest or next lowest qualified bidder. 9 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
We shall now resolve the contentions of petitioners that the Court of Appeals gravely erred: "I IN FAILING TO CONSIDER THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS HAVE NO RIGHT AND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST PETITIONERS, AND THEREFORE, ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE QUESTIONED RELIEF GRANTED THEM BY RESPONDENTS
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 9 pages?
- Fall '19