Case: Malagas v. Penachos, Jr.
Date: September 3, 1992
Ponente: J. Cruz
DOCTRINE
“On issues involving questions of law, courts could not be prevented from exercising
their power to restrain or prohibit administrative acts.”
FACTS:
P.D. 1818 prohibits any court from issuing injunctions in cases involving infrastructure
projects of the government. The Iloilo State College of Fisheries (ISCOF), through its Pre-
qualification, Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) caused the publication an Invitation to Bid for
the construction of a Micro Laboratory Building at ISCOF. The last day for the submission of pre-
qualification requirements (PREC-1) was December 2, 1988. Petitioners Maria Elena Malaga and
Josieleen Najarro, respectively doing business under the name of B.E. Construction and Best Built
Construction, submitted their pre-qualification documents on December 2, 1988. Petitioner Jose
Occeña submitted his own PRE-C1 on December 5, 1988. All three were not allowed to participate
in the bidding because their documents were considered late. Petitioners filed a complaint with
the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo, claiming that although they had submitted their PRE-C1 on time,
they were unable to participate in the scheduled bidding. A restraining order was issued
prohibiting PBAC from conducting the bidding and awarding the project. The defendants filed a
motion to lift the restraining order on the ground that the Court was prohibited from issuing
restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and preliminary mandatory injunctions by P.D. 1818.
Petitioners argued against the applicability of P.D. 1818. The trial court denied the petition for
preliminary injunction and declared that the building sought to be constructed at the ISCOF was
an infrastructure project of the government falling within the coverage of P.D. 1818.
ISSUE:
WON the building sought to be constructed at the ISCOF was an infrastructure project of
the government falling within the coverage of P.D. 1818?
HELD:
No. Even though there are indications in its charter that ISCOF is a government
instrumentality, it nevertheless does not automatically follow that ISCOF is covered by the
prohibition in the said decree. In the case of Datiles and Co. vs. Sucaldito, the Supreme Court
interpreted a similar prohibition contained in P.D. 605, the law after which P.D. 1818 was
patterned. It was there declared that the prohibition pertained to the issuance of injunctions or
restraining orders by courts against administrative acts in controversies involving facts or the
exercise of discretion in technical cases. In the case at bar, it was the lack of proper notice
regarding the pre-qualification requirement and the bidding that caused the elimination of
petitioners B.E. and Best Built. P.D. 1818 was not intended to shield from judicial scrutiny
irregularities committed by administrative agencies such as the anomalies above described.
Hence, the challenged restraining order was not improperly issued by the respondent judge and
the writ of preliminary injunction should not have been denied. Private respondents are to pay the
amount of P10,000.00 each for each of petitioners B.E. Construction and Best Built Construction.
The other petitioner, Occeña Builders, is not entitled to relief because it admittedly submitted its
pre-qualification documents on December 5, 1988, or three days after the deadline.