531 Phil. 447
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Since April 1992, the contract had been extended on a monthly basis, however.
- This Agreement shall cover services rendered since January 1988 and shall continue to be in full force and effect for the period of one (1) year from [the] signing hereof unless sooner terminated upon notice of one party to the other; provided, that should there be no notice of termination within thirty (30) days before the expiry date, the same shall be deemed renewed; and provided further that the party desiring to terminate the contract before the expiry date, shall give thirty (30) days prior written notice to the other party[.][2] (Underscoring supplied)
Pending completion of bids for the proposed contract for janitorial maintenance services, we are hereby extending our contract with you for another month to take effect [on] October 24, 1992.Susana affixed her signature below the word "CONFORME."
Should this extension be acceptable to you, please sign the "CONFORME" space provided below and return this letter to us for our file.[4] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
x x x xOn this letter, Susana did not affix her signature below the word "CONFORME."
This is to inform you that we are extending your contract with LWUA for 12 calendar days (last extension) to take effect [on] December 24, 1992 until January 04, 1993.
In this connection, may we request your Janitor Supervisor to turn over to us all equipment and tools earlier issued to him for proper inventory and accounting, on or before the 23rd of December 1992. The cost of any unaccounted tools and equipment will be deducted from whatever billings you may have with this office.
Should this extension be acceptable to you, please sign the "CONFORME" space provided below and return this letter to us for our file.
x x x x[7] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
WHEREFORE, premises above considered, upon filing of a bond in the sum ofA Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction was accordingly issued.P50,000.00 duly approved by the Court, let a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction be issued enjoining the defendants, their agents and/or representatives to cancel the contract of janitorial services in favor of Fast Manpower and reinstate and award the contract of janitorial services in favor of Laging Qlean Janitorial Services, the latter being the lowest complying bidder.[11] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing consideration, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the defendants, ordering the dismissal of the herein complaint. The writ of preliminary mandatory injunction earlier issued by the court is hereby ordered lifted, and the contract for janitorial maintenance services between the Fast Manpower Services and the [L]ocal Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) shall be reinstated and be enforceable between the parties. With costs against the plaintiff.[14] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)On appeal, the Court of Appeals narrowed down the main issue to whether the award of the contract for janitorial services to Fast Manpower was legal.[15] It, however, passed on the failure of the trial court to cite respondents in contempt of court in this wise:
The contract having expired by its terms on January 4, 1993, and the same can't be extended by injunction, the defendants are therefore not liable for contempt for they did not violate the injunction because the defendants did not terminate the contract but it was terminated by its own terms.[16]By Decision of May 30, 2000,[17] the appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court. Hence, the Petition for Review[18] at bar faulting the appellate court of having
The first assigned error relative to the failure of the trial court as well as of the appellate court to cite respondents in contempt of court fails.I
x x x COMMITTED A SERIOUS REVERSIBLE ERROR, AMOUNTING TO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, IN NOT HOLDING RESPONDENTS GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR DISOBEYING THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ISSUED BY BRANCH 98 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY.II
x x x COMMITTED A SERIOUS REVERSIBLE ERROR, AMOUNTING TO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF BRANCH 98 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY DESPITE THE SERIOUS ERRORS AND APPLICATION OF LAWS, WHICH IF NOT RECTIFIED, WOULD CAUSE GRAVE IRREPARABLE INJURY AND DAMAGE TO HEREIN PETITIONER.[19] (Underscoring supplied)
The court that granted the preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order preserving the status quo is vested with the power to hear and determine the sufficiency and merit of the contempt charge. Only the court which issued the injunction can impose a sanction for contempt of that injunction, and a court without subject matter jurisdiction cannot transfer the case to another court.[20](Emphasis and underscoring supplied; italics in the original),as does the earlier case of San Luis v. Court of Appeals:
"In whatever context it may arise, contempt of court involves the doing of an act, or the failure to do an act, in such a manner as to create an affront to the court and the sovereign dignity with which it is clothed. As a matter of practical judicial administration, jurisdiction has been felt to properly rest in only one tribunal at a time with respect to a given controversy." Only the court which rendered the order commanding the doing of a certain act is vested with the right to determine whether or not the order has been complied with, or whether a sufficient reason has been given for noncompliance, and, therefore, whether a contempt has been committed. It is a well-established rule that the power to determine the existence of contempt of court rests exclusively with the court contemned. No court is authorized to punish a contempt against another.[21] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)As regards the second issue, petitioner posits that the "notice of last extension" was in reality a notice of termination which violated the earlier quoted paragraph 8 of the contract providing for a 30-day prior notice of termination.
2.1 "Labor" Bid PortionFurther, LWUA made a reservation to reject bids as the Invitation to Prequalify and Bid published in the June 6, 1992 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer[24] shows:
All the twelve (12) bidders conformed with the minimum wage (@P118.00 per day for non-agricultural sector of the NCR) set by law. The Villaseran Maintenance Services had the lowest bid for the "Labor" portion, followed by both Fast Manpower Services and Ultimate Care Services. The Laging Qlean Janitorial Services, on the other hand, quoted the highest when it comes to labor. This is attributable, as can be seen in the attached Abstract of Bids, to the higher rate of monthly SSS employer's contribution used by the Laging Qlean Janitorial Services compared to the rate used by the rest of the bidders (P177.30 vs. P152.00). Laging Qlean apparently opted to include the 13th month pay in computing the SSS premium, which the other bidders did not.
To verify the correct amount of monthly SSS premium contribution a private employer should remit, a letter of inquiry dated October 19, 1992, was sent by the IHPBC Chairman to the Social Security System (ANNEX C). From the response of the Chief, Correspondence Section of the Member Assistance Group of the SSS, Mr. Jovenito F. Tagoc dated October 21, 1992 (ANNEX D), the right amount for monthly SSS employer's contribution should have beenP152.
x x x x
2.4 Total Bid Price
In totality, Fast Manpower Services is the lowest complying bidder from among the twelve (12) prequalified contractors. As part of the post-qualification evaluation, the Committee sent letters to the present government clients of Fast Manpower Services to verify its latest annual performance with other companies. From among the list of Fast Manpower's clients, the Committee chose four (4) government agencies for this purpose, namely: (1) the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, (2) Philippine Heart Center, (3) Lung Center of the Philippines, and (4) the Social Security System, all of which gave very satisfactory remarks on the Fast Manpower's performance (refer to ANNEX G). The same proves the credibility Fast Manpower Services has established with their present clients.
3. 0 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 The LWUA Janitorial Services Contract for one year is hereby recommended for award to the FAST MANPOWER SERVICES for the following reasons:3.1.1 Fast Manpower Services has the most economical bid that is most advantageous to LWUA among the twelve (12) bidders, in the amount of NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY FOUR THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED THIRTY NINE AND 30/100 PESOS ONLY (P974,739.30), including taxes, subject to compliance with the usual administrative and legal requirements; and
3.1.2 Fast Manpower Services has proven to be a responsive (i.e., in the sense that it has a record of complying with its contractual commitments) and credible contractor, based on the results of a postqualification inquiry with four (4) big government institutions as respondents.
x x x x[23] (Emphasis in the original; Underscoring supplied)
LWUA reserves the right to reject any or all the bids, to waive any formality found therein and to accept such bid or a part thereof as may be deemed most advantageous to LWUA.[25] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)The discourse in his "A TREATISE ON GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS UNDER PHILIPPINE LAW" of former Commissioner of the Commission on Audit Bartolome C. Fernandez, Jr. is enlightening:
It is a settled rule that where the invitation to bid contains a reservation for the Government to reject any or all bids, the lowest or highest bidder, as the case may be, is not entitled to an award as a matter of right for it does not become the ministerial duty of the Government to make such award. Thus, it has been held that where the right to reject is so reserved, the lowest bid or any bid for that matter may be rejected on a mere technicality, that all bids may be rejected, even if arbitrarily and unwisely, or under a mistake, and that in the exercise of a sound discretion, the award may be made to another than the lowest bidder. And so, where the Government as advertiser, availing itself of that right, makes its choice in rejecting any or all bids, the losing bidder has no cause to complain nor right to dispute that choice, unless an unfairness or injustice is shown. Accordingly, he has no ground of action to compel the Government to award the contract in his favor, nor to compel it to accept his bid.Contrary then to the assertion of petitioner, the bidding was carried out in accordance with its purpose of protecting public interest by giving the public the best possible advantages through open competition.[27]
Verily, a reservation in the advertisement for bids of the right to reject any bid generally vests in the authorities a wide discretion as to who is the best and most advantageous bidder. The exercise of such discretion involves inquiry, investigation, comparison, deliberation and decision, which are quasi-judicial functions, and when honestly performed, may not be reviewed by the courts. In such cases, there is no binding obligation to award the contract to any bidder and in the exercise of such discretion the award may be made validly to whoever among the participating bidders has submitted the most advantageous bid.[26] (Citations omitted) (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)