Nerwin v PNOC, G.R. No.

167057, April 11, 2012

FACTS:

-The National Electrification Admission (NEA) published an invitation in 1999 to bid contracts (IPB No.
80) for the supply of 60,000 pieces of woodpoles and 20,000 pieces of crossarms that will be needed for
the countrys Rural Electrification Project.

-Private respondent (Nerwin), along with 3 other bidders were qualified and eligible for the bid (IPB-80).

-Nerwin, as the lowest bidder among the 4, was found to be the most advantageous for the government
in terms of price difference compared to the other 3 bidders.

-However, in December 19, 2000, the NEA passed a resolution to reduce the required materials for IPB-
80 by 50% due to time limitations.

-Nerwin in response, protested the resolution alleging that it was to accommodate a losing bidder.

-Losing bidders such as Tri State and Pacific Synergy filed a complaint alleging that there were falsified
documents during the pre-qualification stage, allowing Nerwin to take award of the IPB-80 project.

-PNOC-Energy Development Corporation which claims to be under the Department of Energy, issued an
invitation for a pre-qualification of the Samar Rural Electrification Project (O-ILAW project)

-Nerwin filed a civil action in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Manila alleging that the issuance of the
PNOC-Energy Department was an attempt as another bidding for the other items covered by the IPB-80
project.

-The RTC granted the the TRO in Nerwins Civil case

-The respondents in the civil case filed a special civil action for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA)

ISSUE:

-Whether or not the Regional Trial Court should have granted Nerwins issuance for a TRO in his Civil
Case against the PNOC-Energy Development Corporation.

HELD:

-The Court of Appeals ruled that the RTC gravely abused its discretion when they entertained Nerwins
complaint as it violated Section 3 and 4 of Republic Act No. 8975. Only the Supreme court and no other
court can issue TROs against the government.

-The Court affirmed the CAs decision and the petitioner is to pay for the costs of the suit.