View full case

COMELEC v. JUDGE MA. LUISA QUIJANO-PADILLA

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, challenging the issuance of a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction and preliminary mandatory injunction by respondent Judge Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 215, Quezon City. The petitioners allege that the judge committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the said writs. The case revolves around the issue of whether a successful bidder can compel a government agency to formalize a contract with it, even if its bid exceeds the amount appropriated by Congress for the project.

In 1996, the Philippine Congress passed Republic Act No. 8189, also known as the "Voter's Registration Act of 1996," which aimed to modernize and computerize the voters' registration list. Pursuant to this law, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) approved in principle the Voter's Registration and Identification System Project (VRIS), which involved the creation of a computerized database system for voter registration.

Private respondent Photokina Marketing Corporation (PHOTOKINA) participated in the bidding for the supply and installation of information technology equipment and related services for the VRIS Project. PHOTOKINA's bid was the highest and it was declared the winning bidder. However, it was discovered that PHOTOKINA's bid exceeded the amount appropriated by Congress for the project.

The COMELEC Chairperson suggested a revised price that would not exceed the available appropriation, covering only Phase I of the project. The new members of the COMELEC later announced the scrapping of the VRIS Project, and PHOTOKINA's requests for the formal execution of the contract were not granted.

Unhappy with the situation, PHOTOKINA filed a petition seeking mandamus, prohibition, and damages against the COMELEC and its Commissioners. The trial court granted PHOTOKINA's application for a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction and preliminary mandatory injunction. The petitioners now seek to challenge this ruling through a petition for certiorari.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a petition for certiorari on behalf of the COMELEC Chairman and Commissioners. The petition challenged the two resolutions granting a writ of preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction in favor of PHOTOKINA Corporation. The COMELEC argued that PHOTOKINA should have filed an action for specific performance instead of a petition for mandamus and prohibition. The COMELEC commissioners also alleged that the Chairman and the two Commissioners who filed the petition acted without authority from the COMELEC en banc.

The OSG, independent of its client agency, represented COMELEC and argued that it had the authority to file the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the OSG's standing, emphasizing its duty to represent the government's best interest. The Court also recognized that the resolution of the contract dispute in this case was in the interest of the State and necessitated a prompt judicial determination.

Therefore, despite the divergence of opinions among COMELEC Commissioners and the challenge to the authority of the OSG, the Court affirmed the OSG's standing to represent COMELEC and proceed with the petition.

ISSUES:

  1. Is a petition for mandamus the appropriate remedy to enforce contractual obligations?

  2. May a successful bidder compel a government agency to formalize a contract with it notwithstanding that its bid exceeds the amount appropriated by Congress for the project?

  3. Whether mandamus is the proper recourse to enforce the COMELEC's alleged contractual obligations with PHOTOKINA.

  4. Whether the alleged contract between COMELEC and PHOTOKINA is valid and enforceable.

  5. Whether the proposed contract between PHOTOKINA and COMELEC is binding on the government.

  6. Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the preliminary writs of mandatory and prohibitory injunction and in not dismissing Special Civil Action No. Q-01-45405.

RULING:

  1. No, a petition for mandamus is not the appropriate remedy to enforce contractual obligations. The Supreme Court has consistently held that mandamus does not lie to enforce the performance of private contracts. The proper remedy for enforcing contractual obligations is to file an original action in the Court of First Instance to compel the party to perform the contract or to pay damages for the breach of contract. Mandamus is only proper when there is a clear legal duty on the part of the respondent and that duty has been arbitrarily refused.

  2. Yes, a successful bidder may compel a government agency to formalize a contract with it even if the bid exceeds the amount appropriated by Congress for the project. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) may represent the government agency as long as it assesses that such representation is for the best interest of the government. The OSG's client is not the agency but the Republic of the Philippines. Moreover, the OSG is the lawyer of the government, its agencies, instrumentalities, and officials. Therefore, the successful bidder, who is a public official, is entitled to be represented by the OSG.

  3. Mandamus is not the proper recourse to enforce the COMELEC's alleged contractual obligations with PHOTOKINA. Mandamus can only be used as a remedy when the petitioner's right is clearly founded in law and not when the right is doubtful. In this case, the alleged contract between COMELEC and PHOTOKINA is being disputed, not only on the ground that it was not perfected but also because it is illegal and against public policy.

  4. The alleged contract between COMELEC and PHOTOKINA is not valid and enforceable. In government contracts, the existence of appropriations and the availability of funds are indispensable prerequisites for the execution of the contract. The intent is to impose these conditions as a priori requisites to the validity of the contract. In this case, there was an oversight of the legal requirements during the bidding stage, and the contract attempted to be made would obligate the government in an amount in excess of the appropriations for the purpose. Therefore, the alleged contract is deemed void and unenforceable.

  5. The proposed contract between PHOTOKINA and COMELEC is not binding on the government. Since the bid of PHOTOKINA is beyond the amount appropriated by Congress for the VRIS Project, the contract is considered void and unenforceable.

  6. The respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the preliminary writs of mandatory and prohibitory injunction and in not dismissing Special Civil Action No. Q-01-45405. Petitioners cannot be compelled by a writ of mandamus to discharge a duty that involves the exercise of judgment and discretion, particularly in matters concerning the disbursement of public funds.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Mandamus does not lie to enforce the performance of private contracts.

  • The OSG may represent a government agency even if its position runs against the interests of the agency, as long as it is for the best interest of the government.

  • The OSG is the lawyer of the government, its agencies, instrumentalities, and officials.

  • Mandamus is only applicable when the petitioner's right is well-defined, clear, and certain.

  • Government contracts require the existence of appropriations and the availability of funds for their validity.

  • The intent of the requirement for appropriations and availability of funds for government contracts is to limit expenditures within the appropriations made by law for each fiscal year.

  • Contracts involving the expenditure of public funds should comply with the requirements of appropriation and availability of funds, and any contract that violates these requirements is void.

  • Any contract entered into contrary to the requirements of appropriation and availability of funds under the law is null and void ab initio.

  • Parties who contract with the government have recourse under the law, and contracting officers who exceed their lawful powers may be held liable for any consequent damages.

  • Public officers must exercise caution and be accountable for their actions when entering into government contracts.

  • Public office is a public trust, and public officers must always be accountable to the people.

  • Contracts entered into by public officers that are beyond their contracting authority or in excess of the limits imposed by law are not binding on the government.

  • Government contracts must be in conformity with the amounts appropriated by Congress. Contracts exceeding the appropriated amount are considered void.

  • A writ of mandamus cannot be used to compel public officers to perform duties that require the exercise of judgment and discretion, especially those involving the disbursement of public funds.