CA annuls RTC judge’s orders re driver’s license cards
WITH the Court of Appeals’ decision on March 20, 2024, the Land Transportation Office (LTO) has now been given the green light to resume production and issuance of polycarbonate plastic driver’s license cards to the public.
Recall that on June 21, 2023, the Department of Transportation (DoTr) awarded the “Procurement of Pre-Printed Driver’s License Cards Project” to Banner Plasticard, Inc. This project entails the supply of over 5 million plastic cards to the LTO for the year 2023.
On July 17, 2023, AllCard, Inc., the unsuccessful bidder in the aforementioned project, initiated a civil case before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)-Branch 215, Quezon City, against the LTO, the DoTr, and Banner to halt the implementation of the project award.
Subsequently, on Aug. 15, 2023, Judge Rafael G. Hipolito of RTCBranch 215 granted AllCard’s request for a temporary restraining order (TRO), effectively halting the LTO from proceeding with the project. On Oct. 26, 2023, Judge Hipolito made the TRO permanent. As a result, the LTO was unable to issue any plastic driver’s license cards and instead resorted to issuing “paper-printed” driver’s licenses as a temporary measure.
On Oct. 31, 2023, Banner filed a petition before the Court of Appeals to reverse the orders of the RTC. The DoTr and the LTO subsequently filed their own petitions before the CA on Dec. 5, 2023, asking for the dismissal of the civil case pending before the RTC.
Court of Appeal’s ruling
I wrote on Sept. 9, 2023 (https://www.manilatimes. net/2023/09/09/opinion/columns/judge-unlawfully-stoppeddrivers-license-card-project/1909185) that Judge Hipolito had been wrong in issuing the TRO in this manner —
“With all due respect to Judge Hipolito, it is my opinion that the subject TRO is legally infirm. Under paragraph 58.1 of the 2016 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (2016 RIRR) of the Government Procurement Reform Act, ‘Court action may be resorted to only after the protests contemplated in this Rule shall have been completed, i.e., resolved by the HoPE with finality. The regional trial court shall have jurisdiction over final decisions of the HoPE’.”
Likewise, I stated in my column that AllCard “was initially declared as the bidder with the lowest calculated bid (LCB) for the supply of driver’s license cards. However, due to its unsatisfactory performance in their ongoing project with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), the CBAC post-disqualified ACI. Having submitted the LCB is not a guarantee that the bidder would bag the project. There is another hurdle to pass — that of postqualification. Unfortunately, ACI failed the post-qualification.”
All these perspectives were validated, as evidenced by these key points in the Court of Appeals decision:
“By its failure to file a protest with the HoPE, AllCard was precluded from filing its petition for certiorari with the RTC, in accordance with Section 58 of RA No. 9184 and Rule XVII, Section 58.1 of the 2016 Revised IRR cited above.”
“At the outset, it must be emphasized that given that the ABC of the project amounts to Two Hundred Forty Million One Hundred Twenty Thousand Pesos (PHP240,120,000.00), within the range of ‘More than 100 million to 500 million,’ AllCard was bound to pay the required non-refundable protest fee of 0.5 percent of the ABC, or Twelve Million Six Thousand Pesos (PHP 12,006,000.00). AllCard’s premature filing of the Petition for Certiorari leads to the logical deduction that AllCard avoided the mandatory payment of the non-refundable protest fee.”
“Here, there was no violation of due process of law, AllCard, through its own fault, did not avail of the process granted to it by law.”
“Absent the existence of any exception to the non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, AllCard’s petition for certiorari should have been outrightly dismissed by the RTC due to the premature invocation of the jurisdiction of the RTC, and lack of cause of action.”
“In … the Supreme Court has even expressly ruled that a bidder who submits the lowest calculated bid does not automatically warrant an award of contract in its favor, especially when found to be noncompliant during the mandatory post-qualification.”
“Contrary to the RTC’s findings, this Court finds that AllCard was not entitled to a WPI. x x x Here, the RTC, in issuing the assailed order dated 13 October 2023, committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction. x x x Petitioners were able to establish that the RTC committed serious amounting to grave abuse of discretion when it issued the assailed orders dated 13 October 2023 and 24 October 2023 granting AllCard’s application for issuance of a WPI.”
BSP fiasco hounds AllCard
The Court of Appeals’ decision reveals that the failed national ID project of AllCard with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) is still hounding AllCard.
The decision reads in part, “the CBAC-TWG recommended the disqualification of AllCard in the bidding on account of BSP’s averment, through a letter dated 31 May 2023, that AllCard has incurred delay in the delivery of goods representing at least ten percent (10 percent) of the contract price of its ongoing project therein.”
“Subsequently, on 06 June 2023, the CBAC received a second letter from BSP, stating the details of AllCard, Inc.’s delay in the delivery of goods in one (1) of its ongoing contracts with the said agency. The details are as follows: a. As of 02 June 2023, the actual percentage of delay incurred by AllCard, Inc. in the delivery of goods is 45 percent; x x x.”
However, what is more revealing is that AllCard is now blaming BSP for the fiasco. The decision states that, “AllCard sent a letter dated June 5, 2023 alleging that its delay, and consequently, the pending dispute with BSP regarding the liquidated damages imposed by BSP, was caused by the defect of the raw materials procured from BSP’s pre-selected supplier, Kinegram.”
Finally, the Court of Appeals dismissed the pending civil case filed by AllCard before the RTC Branch 215 in Quezon City. Consequently, the injunctive reliefs previously granted by RTC-215 to AllCard were annulled and revoked.
As a result, the public can now anticipate receiving their longawaited physical plastic driver’s license cards from the LTO, as there are no further legal obstacles.
The ruling of the Court of Appeals represents a victory, not only for the LTO and its contractor Banner Plasticard but also for the public, which has been inconvenienced by the deceptive tactics employed by AllCard.