This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-03-26 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Pinatubo's argument that items 3 and 3.1 of NPC Circular No. 99-75 deprived it of its "right to bid" or that these conferred such right in favor of a third person is erroneous. Bidding, in its comprehensive sense, means making an offer or an invitation to prospective contractors whereby the government manifests its intention to invite proposals for the purchase of supplies, materials and equipment for official business or public use, or for public works or repair.[20] Bidding rules may specify other conditions or require that the bidding process be subjected to certain reservations or qualifications.[21] Since a bid partakes of the nature of an offer to contract with the government,[22] the government agency involved may or may not accept it. Moreover, being the owner of the property subject of the bid, the government has the power to determine who shall be its recipient, as well as under what terms it may be awarded. In this sense, participation in the bidding process is a privilege inasmuch as it can only be exercised under existing criteria imposed by the government itself. As such, prospective bidders, including Pinatubo, cannot claim any demandable right to take part in it if they fail to meet these criteria. Thus, it has been stated that under the traditional form of property ownership, recipients of privileges or largesse from the government cannot be said to have property rights because they possess no traditionally recognized proprietary interest therein.[23] | |||||
|
2006-08-22 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised,[51] since the Court, after all, is not a trier of facts.[52] Unless for exceptional reasons, It is not to review the evidence on record and assess the probative weight thereof.[53] However, factual issues may be delved into and resolved where, as in this case, the findings and conclusions of the Office of the Ombudsman in its decision are frontally inconsistent with those in the assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA.[54] | |||||
|
2006-04-07 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Conspiracy or collusion by and among public officers, inter se, and via private individuals to commit the crime under Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019 must likewise be proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. This was the ruling of the Court in Desierto v. Ocampo:[79] | |||||