91. Miaa vs Olongapo

91. MANILA MANIL A INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY and ANTONIO P. GANA VS. OLONGAPO MAINTENANCE SERVICES, INC. and TRIPLE CROWN SERVICES, INC. G.R. No, 146184-8!G.R. No. 16111", #an$a%& '1, ())8 Na*$%+ o *+ P%o++d/n0: P%o++d/n0 : Petition for Writ of Preliminary Injunction Ma*+%/a 2a*3 1.) OMSI OMSI and and TCSI TCSI were were among among the the fie fie contr contract actor! or! of MI"" MI"" which which had had janito janitoria riall and and maintenance !erice contract! coering ariou! area! in the #inoy "$uino International  "ir%ort. &efore their !erice contract! e'%ired on Octo(er Octo(er 1* 1++,* the MI"" &oard of  -irector!* through "ntonio P. ana* then eneral Manager of MI""* wrote OMSI and TCSI informing them that their contract! would no longer (e renewed after Octo(er 1* 1++,. /.) On Se%tem(er Se%tem(er /,* 1++,* 1++,* TCSI* in a letter letter to ana* e'%re!!ed e'%re!!ed it! concern concern oer the award award of it! conce!!ion area to a new !erice contractor through a negotiated contract. It !aid that that to award award TCSI0 TCSI0! ! contr contract act (y mere mere nego negotia tiatio tion n would would iolat iolate e it! right right to e$ual e$ual %rotection of the law. TCSI thu! !ugge!ted that a %u(lic (idding (e conducted and that the effec effecti tiity ity of it! !eric !erice e contra contract ct (e mean meanwhi while le e'ten e'tende ded d until until a winnin winning g (id (id i! declared. .) In re%ly* re%ly* MI"" wrote wrote TCSI and OMSI reiterat reiterating ing it! di!inclin di!inclinatio ation n to renew the latter0! latter0! contract!* adding that it wa! to the goernment0! adantage to in!tead ju!t negotiate with other contractor!. The MI"" !aid that awarding a contract through negotiation wa! in accordance with Section + of 'ecutie Order #o. 2O) +34 Sec. ,/ of 5e%u(lic "ct #o. 25") ,6//* otherwi!e 7nown a! the General Appropriations Act for 1998 4 and Sec. 819 of the oernment "ccounting and "uditing Manual 2""M). 8.) Con!e Con!e$u $uen ently tly** OMSI OMSI and and TCSI TCSI in!tit in!titute uted d ciil ciil ca!e! ca!e! again again!t !t MI"" MI"" to fore!t fore!tal alll the the terminat termination ion of their their contrac contract! t! and %reent MI"" from negotia negotiating ting with other other !erice !erice contractor!. I33$+3 1.) Whether Whether or not the Court of "%%eal! "%%eal! erred erred in declarin declaring g that re!%onden re!%ondent! t! had e'tant e'tant intere!t! in the awarding of the !erice contract! /.) Whether Whether or not the Court of "%%eal "%%eal! ! erred in holding holding that %etition %etitioner! er! had no %ower to award the !erice contract! through negotiation

R$/n0 " deci!ion i! here(y rendered* rendered* ordering ordering a! follow!: 1. The negotiated contract (y and (etween the re!%ondent! and the re!olution of the MI"" &oard* dated Octo(er /* 1++,* authoriing MI"" management and;or re!%ondent M ana to negotiate and award !erice contract! u%on the e'%iration of the %re!ent !erice contract* on Octo(er 1* 1++, are here(y declared #OI-4 /. The writ of %reliminary injunction i! 5C"==- and #