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] | |||||
|
2005-12-09 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, attorney's fees may be awarded when a party is compelled to litigate or incur expenses to protect his interest by reason of an unjustified act of the other party.[53] Petitioners are entitled thereto because they were compelled to litigate in order to protect their interest. Moreover, there being an award for exemplary damages,[54] it follows that there should be an award thereof. An award of P20,000.00 will be sufficient as the award of P200,000.00 by the RTC is too much. | |||||
|
2005-05-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Actual or compensatory damages are those awarded in order to compensate a party for an injury or loss he suffered. They arise out of a sense of natural justice and are aimed at repairing the wrong done.[11] Except as provided by law or by stipulation, a party is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss as he has duly proven.[12] It is hornbook doctrine that to be able to recover actual damages, the claimant bears the onus of presenting before the court actual proof of the damages alleged to have been suffered, thus:A party is entitled to an adequate compensation for such pecuniary loss actually suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such damages, to be recoverable, must not only be capable of proof, but must actually be proved with a reasonable degree of certainty. We have emphasized that these damages cannot be presumed and courts, in making an award must point out specific facts which could afford a basis for measuring whatever compensatory or actual damages are borne.[13] | |||||