Você está na página 1de 1

CASE TITLE: Nerwin v. PNOC, G.R. No.

167057, April 11, 2012


PRINCIPLE OF THE LAW: Section 3 of RA 8975 clearly prohibits issuance of TRO, preliminary
injunctions, and preliminary mandatory injunctions against gov’t

Article 5 of the Civil Code clearly states that “acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or
prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law itself authorizes their validity.”

Article 17, (3) of the Civil Code also states that “prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or
property, and those which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall
not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions
agreed upon in a foreign country.”

FACTS: In 1999, National Electrification Administration (NEA) published an invitation to pre-qualify


and to bid for a contract known as IPB No. 80 for the supply and delivery of about 60,000 pieces of
wood poles and 20,000 of cross-arms. Nerwin, who proposed the lowest bid out of the four bidders,
got the Contract.

However, NEA’s board of directors passed a resolution reducing by 50% the material requirements
for IPB 80 to which Nerwin protested, alleging that the same was a ploy to accommodate a losing
bidder. A losing bidder, Tri State and Pacific Synergy filed a complaint alleging the documents Nerwin
submitted during the pre-qualification bid were falsified. Finding a way to nullify the bid, NEA sought
the opinion of Gov’t Corporate Counsel who upheld the eligibility of Nerwin. Notwithstanding, NEA
allegedly held negotiations with other bidders for IPB 80 contract which prompted Nerwin to file a
complaint with prayer of injunction which was granted by RTC Manila.

PNOC – Energy Dev’t Corp issued an invitation to pre-qualify and bid for O-ILAW project. Nerwin
filed a civil action in RTC alleging that it was an attempt to subject portions of IPB 80 to another
bidding. He prayed for TRO to enjoin respondents to the proposed bidding. Respondents averred
that this is in violation of a rule that government infrastructure are not subject to TROs. RTC granted
TRO nevertheless. CA ruled in favor of respondents. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether CA ruling is valid in accordance with RA 8975, and Article 5 and Article 17, Par 3, of
the Civil Code.

RULING: Yes. CA ruling is affirmed. Sec 3 of RA 8975 clearly prohibits issuance of TRO, preliminary
injunctions, and preliminary mandatory injunctions against government. RA 8975 is a prohibitory law
in which acts in violation thereof shall be void. Article 5 of the Civil Code clearly states that “acts
executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law
itself authorizes their validity.” Moreover, Article 17 (3) of the Civil Code also states that “prohibitive
laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public order,
public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated,
or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.”